User talk:Friday

Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue.

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5 /archive6

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

Question on RD by banned editor.

See [1], and note the lame pun. Should it be removed?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, given than any idiot with a dictionary could find the answer there, it's hard for me to see it as a legitimate question. I've generally been reverting/blocking Light current as he turns up, on the assumption that it only takes me 2 seconds to do it and it probably takes him longer to get a new IP address, and hopefully he'll get bored. Altho, he seems to have a nearly infinite capacity for doing boring things, so who knows. Friday (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be boring himself silly right now, Friday. I semi'd your pages, see History for why, and please unprotect when it suits. Oh, wait, I'd better go protect my own next. Bishonen | talk 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Notability of recorded songs

Hello, Friday. I have a lot of musical standards (songs) on my watchlist, and, in some cases, the list of "notable" covered recordings is either very long, or a rather odd sample, highlighting lesser known bands and artists, and omitting the "classics" (whoever they may be). Is there a guideline on inclusion? I couldn't find anything. Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did find some starting points. Sorry, I don't know how I suddenly mistook you for the Help Desk or a pump. I guess I once saw you discussing notability and songs. Cheers anyway. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with asking other editors for ideas. In this case I would probably try to encourage people to not try to include big lists of everyone who's covered a song. The same thing happens with video games- people are always editing car or gun articles trying to add lists of every game where it has ever appeared. I consider this basically trivia- of course a particularly well known cover may be worth talking about. I would let the sources be my guided- if lots of sources are talking about a particular cover, this makes it more suitable for inclusion in my book. Friday (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not promoting my band.

First of all, what even makes you think I'm in this band.
Second, who are you to delete this.
Third, where did all my information go. I contested it and I believe they met the criteria for a band. They were aired on a Chestertown radio station.
Fourth, this was supposed to be a graduation gift to the bass player. Way to ruin it, Friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peedrag (talk • contribs)

That pretty much says it all. Friday (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Graduation gift? For real? :eyes rolling: David D. (Talk) 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, the band is his heart and soul. Something that you two obviously do not have. Perhaps, Friday, you have a conflict of interest. At this point you do not like the band or the author, so maybe you should go read whatever wikipedia page there is for that. I trust you did look up the band, and maybe even caught some of their music. My guess is you didn't like it either, which is what I would also call a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peedrag (talk • contribs)

Listen, this is an encyclopedia. Just how many bands should we include? Why not set up a web site for the band instead of an encyclopedia article? David D. (Talk) 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peedrag. If they're an actual band who plays on the radio, then they deserve to be reconized. Other bands are on this site, why not this one?Blulightning 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

deja vue

re: break out the history desk

FYI, note that Hirakawacho (talk · contribs) started this page (Featured article candidates/Psychology) that was tended by Paracit (talk · contribs) who is a sockpuppet of Eptypes (talk · contribs). This is one convoluted web and I think it needs to be nipped in the bud. David D. (Talk) 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call

Makes it wikilawyer proof, I think. Gold star. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured nobody would object. No sense spending any time at all entertaining arguments about conflict of interest. Friday (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

I noticed your redirect of this article and thought you might be interested in the current deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks messy. Well, the redirect is useful right now, and doesn't interfere in any way with the deletion review. Not sure my participation there would accomplish anything useful, but thanks for the pointer. Friday (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Perv?

I presume that your kind words applied to my answer to the above-captioned question. There is always a risk that if you leave a question like that without a, shall we call it, "flat" answer, the laughing hyenas descend. (Not that I have a personal problem with a good run of the sillies, but it does take up a lot of time.) Then there is always the chance, however small, that some poor soul is hunched over the computer screen, using its blue light to check for the first signs of hirsute palms. Even if the compliment was for somehting else, I appreciate it, nonetheless. Thank you. Bielle 02:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that was it. Seems reasonable to me, and you're welcome. Friday (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that A.Z. doesn't agree. Note his first paragraph is a suggestion that I could have handled it better. He may be right, if it isn't a troll. As for his second paragraph, we will just have to wait and see what we get back from the questionner. Just another boring night at the Ref. Desk. Bielle 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the added bits have now diappeared. I wasn't complaining about them. They did just make me smile, following immediately upon your compliment. Bielle 03:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a post from the reference desk. I will revert your changes. If you persist in this behavior, I will go to the administrators' notice board, and then, after the reference desk is safe from you because you are blocked, we can chat more about this. A.Z. 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in reverting you. You should revert yourself. But, if you think I've done wrong, go ahead and report me. I welcome further input on this issue. Friday (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

1) If you have no interest in reverting me, why did you revert me?

2) I don't see a reason to report you. A.Z. 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI Lambian removed the question as it apparently was trolling from a permanently banned used. I don't know how to link to the Miscellaneous Ref Desk's history page or I would show you the change.Bielle 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff. I'm not sure if Lambian thought it was Light current (talk · contribs), but it wasn't. The IP isn't blocked either, so I don't know who the banned user is. Nevertheless, even though I thought your response was perfectly appropriate, it perhaps better its gone rather than waste time with the subsequent fallout. Rockpocket 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC channels

Hey there,

I've noticed that you seem unhappy about the IRC channels, and, in particular, #wikipedia-en-admins; what exactly are your concerns, and is there anything I can do to help?

James F. (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks for the note. It's possible this is going to just be an intractable difference of opinion, but I'll see if I can coherently explain my position without ranting. I also fully realize that I'm definitely fighting an uphill battle in attempting to discourage the use of it. It seems to me like people like it because "that's what we've always done", and I wish people would instead take a fresh look and do some cost/benefit analysis. Here's some of the big downsides I see about irc:

1. It's instruction creep. We already have a nicely effective tool for making the encyclopedia- it's the wiki. You encourage people to use another, completely unrelated tool why?
2. It fragments discussion. If people are having a useful discussion of Wikipedia-related matters on irc, this is lost to most of us.
3. Non-transparency. A big part of what lets Wikipedia work is histories and logs. There's little room for argument about what someone said or did, on-wiki. The fact that people spend any time at all arguing about irc logs should tell us something.
4. Chat rooms make friends. And, (perhaps worse yet), enemies. Wikipedia works better without friends or enemies. How much drama would be avoided if people didn't have their little cliques? Why do we do extra work to encourage cliquishness?

The alleged advantages I've heard, save for one, sound to me like things that would work at least as well if done on-wiki. The one advantage I see is that it's not public. I fully realize that certain small groups (I'm thinking people like oversighters, arbcom, checkusers) deal with sensitive information and NEED a non-public channel. I have no objection to this whatsoever, but why not use a nonpublic channel only when dealing with such sensitive info? If, on the other hand, an editor wants advice on making a block or other potentially controversial action, we've already got pages specifically for that purpose. Hiding that kind of discussion helps how?

In short, I see some big enough disadvantages that I'd want some very big offsetting advantages to make using irc a good idea. And I don't see those big advantages. What you could do to help is to shut down your chat room. But, I realize, since it's yours, this probably isn't a very reasonable thing for me to ask. So, I'd be happy with removing all mention of it from on the wiki. Maybe over time it would atrophy and go away, or get to a point where it's only used when there a legitimate need for secrecy. Friday (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing: These little cliques are going to exist whether you or I like it or not. Undoubtedly, there are squillions of cliques everywhere that none of us have any clue about. Shutting down admins IRC won't do anything to change that. The admins channel at least allows for a "clique" of somewhere around 1,000 people (theoretically) who can gut-check each other. FCYTravis 04:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but there's no reason why we can't hold those cliques accountable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, hold which cliques accountable for what, exactly? FCYTravis 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We can't stop people being cliquey, if that's what they want to do. However, we can choose to not promote some chat room on the wiki. I'm saying that it would help, not that it would magically eliminate all our problems. Friday (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the "admin's channel", there's a few issues with that- it's not an admin's channel, it's the "whoever James says is allowed" channel. Even if it were an admin's channel, it's about as useful as someone making Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 2 and suggesting half our conversations go there, and telling people they're not allowed to click the "history" tab. I've not heard valid reasons for keeping them around, I've only heard "I like it" or "we've had them for years so they must be good". Friday (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As IRC, specifically freenode, are well established, including even wikimedia official administrative meetings/work, similar channels will continue to exist regardless of official recommendation on-wiki. As such, 'tis better explicitly linked, rather than secreted away. It should be clear that referencing IRC conversation on-wiki, unless an official logged meeting (archived on-wiki), is to be avoided. However, I see little benefit in attempts to discouarage the channel's known existance. ∴ here…♠ 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the intractable different of opinion I figured we'd hit. People who see irc as a net gain will never be convinced by attempts to discourage it, and people who see it as a net loss will never see why we should encourage it. I was hoping people might see that there's a middle ground here- maybe it's quite useful for certain specialized purposes but it's a generally bad idea for anything that could be done on the wiki instead. I guess I see it largely as a distraction from what's useful. We have a hard enough time with damage control on Wikipedia- aren't we just borrowing trouble by trying to keep two houses in order? Friday (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel IRC is more akin to editors who know each other in real life, and perhaps attend something like a meetup or Wikimania. In both cases, off-wiki conversation is extended and productive. I've often found such conversations help editors clarify and discuss their opinions before formally contributing. I feel the social and functional interaction at either is a net gain for the project, as you correctly assume. However, neither should be considered a second house to keep in order, as you put it. When it comes down to it, I feel similarly regarding the multiple e-mail lists, which I typically do not closely follow. IRC is one of many possible off-wiki channels of communication, none of which should typically be cited or referenced without on-wiki -- on-record explanation. ∴ here…♠ 06:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to clarify what seems to be a mis-understanding - access to #wikipedia-en-admins is, as with all WMF channels on Freenode, up to me, but I delegate said responsibilty for all channels, and keep a very light hand on the tiller (lest I go mad from the work). Given the purpose of the channel, it is appropriate that users who are sysops not only on enwiki but also elsewhere, such as meta or commons, or who have special privileges (oversight/checkuser) for such wikis have access, or may have a particularly good level of experience in dealing with such issues in the past or in other contexts. Given the importance of the work that goes on, some of it co-ordinated through said channel, it would be grossly inappropriate to let people who cannot be trusted to respect the obviously privileged and sensitive nature of the channel, and sadly into this category fall a few people who are sysops on enwiki. It is greatly disappointing to me that there exist such individuals, but as my remit for dealing with such behaviour does (by my own design) not extend to the WMF wikis, an exclusion, partial or otherwise, from "my" IRC channels is all the remedy I can assign. In my personal opinion, and one that I most certainly do not use in my judgements either on WMF wiki matters or on WMF IRC matters, if one is found unsuitable for access to sensitive parts of the community's communications network and is considered unsound, the consideration of one's position would be appropriate.

James F. (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really saying that information regarding checkuser or oversight issues may be present in this channel? Doesn't that seem like a problem, all by itself? Surely it would be better if such information were only shared with people designated as having those rights. I would think that anyone who doesn't know better than to share it, should probably not have access to sensitive information. Friday (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Monster Pig

Please see:

My site for my gf :(

You deleted ma site about Rachael Carter before i had the chance to show it to her. I am really annoyed about that, and is there any way of restoring it for a while? thank you

I will not restore it. Have you considered buying her a card? Or perhaps making a page for her on your own website? Here we're making an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That woosh you heard was the sound of my sarcasm flying over your head

Ever heard of sarcasm? Because that's what you missed in my post to Night Gyr. FCYTravis 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the suggestion to email was not meant seriously. Your comment was still very inappropriate. Friday (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It summed up the entire debate in a single sentence - we're arguing over an article about a high school athlete who's unwillingly been subjected to a bunch of sex-crazed bloggers passing her photo around like a piece of meat to be leered at. That behaviour is inappropriate at the middle school level, much less the real world, and if Wikipedia is going to be complicit in her objectification, it's no longer a project I'm interested in being a part of. FCYTravis 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments on this matter were far more junior-high-school-locker-roomish than any of the deleted article content you feel so rabidly about. If your interest were truly in removing this kind of content, I can't imagine why would you also add to it. Friday (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Did calling a spade a spade hit a bit too close to home for someone, perhaps? FCYTravis 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for your little joke, do you honestly believe that jokingly suggesting an editor sexually harass the subject of an article is appropriate? If it wasn't a joke, I'd be far more worried about it I suppose, but as a joke, it's in very poor taste. So, I can't take you seriously as a crusader for decency. Friday (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that anyone who wouldn't understand the clear rhetorical nature of the question would not be suitable for a sysop bit to begin with. FCYTravis 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Your judgement was very poor here. The "if you don't get the joke, you must be stupid" routine is even lamer than the joke. Friday (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Joke? What joke? The fact that a bunch of low-lifes pass pictures of athletes around is not funny in the least - it's disturbing, pathetic and degrading. It's not funny and it's not meant to be funny. It pointed out in no uncertain terms exactly what our article on this woman would have done - remind people around the world for all eternity that this woman happened to be the subject of their objectification for 15 minutes. She doesn't deserve that, and that's why the article must die. FCYTravis 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly why we shouldn't be gratuitously juvenile in our discussions of it. I found your comments to be gratuitously juvenile, hence my objection. Friday (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying my comments were gratuitiously juvenile is rather different than saying I advocate sexual harassment, isn't it? FCYTravis 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit speaks for itself. I've said my piece. Friday (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd have been less confrontational and more explanatory, we could have avoided this. FCYTravis 22:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

LC

Thought you might get some amusement out of this. It cracked me up, so I couldn't bring myself to revert it. Feel free to if you wish, though. Rockpocket 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bahahaha. You know, if there was more funny stuff like that and less calling people rude names, maybe he wouldn't have been banned in the first place. Friday (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hyundai Tiburon..

Alright, I hope I'm doing this right..

http://www.importshark.com/

Thats the link where I got the pictures and the information about the 2009 model.

As for the picture I posted..

Yeah if we're not allowed to use that picture, it would be nice if you could find a picture of the 2007 Tiburon just to keep the page up to date.

Hyundai Tiburon

Alright, sorry about that, I'm still new to this whole Wikipedia thing.

DRV disputes

Hi, I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye on process thingies, but I wonder if you might give me a outside take as someone who's obviously concerned about BLP. I'm afraid I'm losing it with Xoloz's inclination to (in my view) perpetuate victimhood by relisting biographies for process reasons. He did it with Stokke and doomed us to another pointless and acrimonious afd, and today he did it again with this. Am I overreacting? I'm getting support from quite a few people, but most of it is a little predictable. I'd like to hear what someone who's not going to be uncritical of my actions thinks.--Doc^g 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the perils of having friends on the wiki- you'll never get an honest answer out of them. I have mixed thoughts on the Stokke thing (I had foolishly hoped that a second AFD, considering only the article-about-an-athlete, might put this to rest). As for this latest, I don't think you were out of line. Oh, now it's been redirected.. Hm, I wonder if redirects are a useful tool in many of these cases. People get less bent out of shape over a bold redirect than a bold deletion, it seems. The disadvantage of course being that we still have the person's name, but I see this as a small concern because it's already all over the net. I think you were reasonable here. I'm not always going to agree on every little thing, but in general I'm glad to see people taking a bold stance on this issue. Encyclopedia does not equal "summary of all news items we can find". Friday (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is nice to know I'm not totally overreacting. The sooner we get a settled process here the better, I hate it when we are in flux as a community - but it really is the only way we move forward.--Doc^g 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happened to the recent Carla Baron case. I don't think she really had a leg to stand on with respect to deleting the article, there was one link that critised this TV psychic profiler. Nevertheless, she seems happy with the result. David D. (Talk) 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OFFICE

Just in case you weren't aware, the unblocking administrator, User:Bastique, is Cary Bass, who handles OFFICE duties for the foundation. We try to handle this kind of stuff discreetly and without fuss, and administrators flying off the handle and holding stupid votes on community bans like a bunch of newbies from Votes for flogging is not helpful. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all that. A quiet mention of office in the unblock log seems like it would have helped diffuse this, with no obvious disadvantage. Back in the day, wasn't it accepted practice that office matters would say so in edit summaries and the like? Friday (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was found in practice to be far more controversial to do this. There's always some charlie who wants to stick it to The Man. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you ever find a way to make the kooks go away, let me know asap. Maybe we could set up a decoy Wikipedia and they'd all go- wait a minute. Is this the decoy Wikipedia? Hmm. Friday (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO one of the worst handlings of a delicate situation in a long time. If Cary Bass had time to explain his actions on IRC to a bunch of admins who then came on-Wiki to ride shotgun for him, then he should have had time to explain it to the satisfaction of on-wiki admins. If not, then the editor in question should have remained blocked until a sufficient explanation was formulated on-wiki. Anchoress 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. I can't find a single thing to disagree with in there. Time spent forming a posse in a chat room is better spent explaining yourself to the people involved. Friday (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pls make IRC go away or make people less stupid about it? --Iamunknown 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I threw a stick, but it didn't go away. Out of ideas, here. Friday (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could take Mackensen's advice and hang out on it to tell people when they should shut up and go on wiki? --Iamunknown 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of like the IRC version of playing Philip Glass or The Eagles at a subway station to keep hoodlums from loitering. I've never had the slightest interest in IRC, but I'd join to do that. ;-) Anchoress 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see at some point if they'll (whoever "they" are) me get on the admin channel to do just that (although not as obnoxiously as you might imagine). Also, it might actually prove useful once in a while! But I must say that I have been unimpressed with IRC when I have used it, and I don't like the fact that your IP is readily available with the /whois command.  :\ --Iamunknown 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you need people to do this. A bot could easily spout off every few minutes with things like "Are you discussing Wikipedia matters? Is there a legitimate need for privacy? Consider using the wiki instead; it works best when people use it as intended." I've even been in IRC a few times, and I'll admit I saw neither heroes nor villains in there, but I also saw no useful purpose to it. We already have a nice tool for making the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot would become background noise, you need people so they don't spout off stuff when you are taking about the encyclopedia. It has some useful purpose (that I've noticed), but I'd prefer people stay on-wiki when possible. --Iamunknown 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard of IRC until an off-wiki convo with an admin who suggested I patronise it. The admin's description of IRC was that it was a place s/he felt worthwhile hanging out in because s/he made friends there who would later 'back her/him up on controversial admin moves'. I therefore had the unique experience of both being introduced to, and completely turned off of, IRC at the exact same moment. Anchoress 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>My, what a fantastic place!</sarcasm> --Iamunknown 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Gah, yuck. That's exactly the biggest problem with it. For Wikipedia purposes, we should be friendly, but we should not have friends. Friends are too willing to back you up because it's you. We are immeasurably better off judging each situation on its own merits, not on the basis of who is on which "side". Sides hurt the project. Friday (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That conversation had the corrolary of completely turning me off being an admin (although I'd never particularly wanted to be one), and largely turning me off administrators in general. ;-) See? Off-wiki communication is EVIL. ;-) Anchoress 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(e/c) What I find frustrating is that, while I am willing to make friends, I don't always back my friends up when I think they've done something terribly stupid. But that is not what others consider "friends"; they consider friends someone who will back you up no matter what. That is a worthless definition. --Iamunknown 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. Some people are mature enough to consider the merits, some are not. If we were dealing entirely with mature and reasonable people, IRC could do no harm. Of course, if everyone involved with Wikipedia was mature and reasonable, we'd have no need of AFD, arbcom, page protections, blocks, etc etc. We already know that a certain segment of the user population is problematic. All we can do is decide how best to achieve harm reduction. In my book, IRC has failed to justify its existence as a wikipedia-related tool. Friday (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In yet another shocking revelation, it turns out there are places on the wiki for admins to ask for advice or input from others. I caught a newly-minted admin using it for this very purpose, not long ago, at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#New_Admin_with_a_Question. Since that sort of thing is the stated main purpose of the so-called admin channel, I can only assume the folks over there didn't realize we already had means of doing this. Friday (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

zOMG desysop him immediately! NEED MORE CABAL --Iamunknown 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I much prefer "office" actions to be explicitly marked as such. The disadvantage of encouraging people who just want to thumb their noses at authority is far outweighed by the advantage of preventing ordinary good faith editors from accidentally stepping on landmines. Uncle G 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I have a feeling, based on your response to my the terrorists have won comment on WP:AN, you believe I was calling Bastique or ColScott or someone else a terrorist. That was not my intent; please review this. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know. I was trying to make a joke but maybe it was a poor one. The point I was trying to make is that the only people who "won" are the IRC crowd. Why is it that whenever we hear "Nothing to see here, the wise folks in some chat room are handling this" it's in response to some total fuckup? Friday (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay; I was just worried I was going to have a black mark on my record somewhere saying I called someone a terrorist (I guess I was the one misunderstanding). About the IRC piece, yes... I agree. -- tariqabjotu 21:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton talk page

How is it any different than saying her medical condition might be related to her preexisting herpes infection. Darkchun 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, not our own speculation, or somebody's roommate's cousin's friend. Friday (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So if it was reworded it would have been perfectly good? There was link to the New York Post about her having herpes. The only thing unsourced was that her release was due to the herpes, but stress-induced herpes outbreaks are real and it is a logical conclusion. Darkchun 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alison Stokke

I am mildly offended by the remark [2] that those of us who !voted Keep on the AfD were simply trying to halt deletion by "being loud about it". The Keep argument centred around the fact that the article did cite multiple reliable sources, per WP:BIO, and demonstrated extensive non-trivial coverage of Ms. Stokke; further, that the article was not in violation of WP:BLP because the information was sourced, verifiable, and written in a factual and neutral tone. You may not agree. I understand the desire of some well-meaning users to protect Ms. Stokke's privacy, and that's fair enough. I respect your opinion, but I'm not happy with the implication that mine is not valid, nor with Coredesat's arbitrary closure. Where there isn't a clear consensus to delete (in which all established users' opinions should be taken into account), the result should always be No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^Assistance! 19:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense intended. I was mainly trying to say that the view of "there are many people on both sides, so it can only be no consensus", if taken too far, leads to a de-facto ability to veto deletion just by being loud about it. I'm not saying this is what people were trying to do. Sorry if this came out sounding overly harsh. For the record, I'm not doubting the good faith of the folks on either side of the fence, here. Friday (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Where there isn't a clear consensus to delete (in which all established users' opinions should be taken into account), the result should always be No consensus, default to Keep.

Not in the case of living persons. In borderline cases, the balance is tipped the other way especially with non-public people that do not want an article. The BLP policy was intended to change the way that we interpret all other policies. When there is conflicting arguments (hopefully all based on sound policy), then the idea of do no harm needs to be the deciding factor. Anything else simple does not make sense. So delete (or merge) is the call in these cases. FloNight 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept you didn't mean to cause offence. I disagree with FloNight's comments above, however. Although any article that is defamatory or libellous towards a living person should be deleted immediately (under CSD G10), I don't believe this should apply to sourced, verifiable and neutral content, which should be treated according to the AfD process. I realise some users disagree, and that's fine, but I don't like the way some people use BLP as a window to impose their own views and ignore their opponents'. Where consensus is unclear, the default option should never be Delete; that's a path to authoritarianism. I realise that everyone here is acting in good faith and making a genuine attempt to protect people's privacy; but that isn't a good reason to ignore the principle of consensus, IMO. Walton^Assistance! 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A default to delete for lack of consensus makes just as much sense as default to keep. The difference being that once Wikipedia needed articles and that was the main focus. It made sense to hang on to as much content as was absolutely possible. Today as our volume of articles has grown our concern is about the quality of our content more than in the past. This is particularly true in regard to material about living persons as we have learned from experience that we have the power to be disruptive in peoples lives. That is the reason that the policies are evolving in that direction. FloNight 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but a "default to delete" system automatically gives more discretionary power to admins, which is inherently a bad thing. The proper role of admins is as functionaries, carrying out the will of the community as expressed through consensus and discussion, not as authority-figures with discretion to decide what's "right" for the encyclopedia. That's why discussion and process are important. It's a sad, but necessary, situation that we have to have different technical access levels, giving some users more power than others; to balance that, we need strict safeguards to ensure that the opinion of non-admins counts. Walton^Assistance! 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

12-year-olds

Perhaps you want to reflect on the appropriateness of discriminating against them. A.Z. 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors who act like children are hardly ever helpful. We don't need unhelpful editors. Friday (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not discrimination to compare a user's actions to that of a group's stereotypical actions. If anything, it's stereotyping (and a particular stereotype I'd agree with), but it's not discrimination unless he's changing his interactions with 12 year olds based solely on their age. Leebo ^T/C 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should rephrase what you said: "There are plenty of web sites where they encourage people to act like [insert here appropriate noun describing those who act like Friday thinks Light Current acts, which allegedly makes him an unhelpful editor], but Wikipedia isn't really meant to be one of them." That way, you don't offend a whole group of people who don't act in ways that would make them bad editors. A.Z. 03:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So, you're offended by my using "acting like a 12 year old" to characterize certain unproductive behavior? It seems to me like the obvious solution is: Don't act like a 12 year old, then there's no reason to be offended. Friday (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But don't you see that 12-year-olds will always act like 12-year-olds, no matter what they do? They can write great articles or delete the main page, they will be acting like 12-year-olds, if they are 12-year-olds. Black people will always act like black people, no matter what they do; and gay people will always, no matter whether they are bad or good, helpful or unhelpful, act like gay people act. The obvious solution is: characterize unproductive behavior as such, and not as the behavior of a group of people that have nothing to do with the subject in the first place. A.Z. 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Acting like a 12 year old" is just a way of saying "acting immature". Friday (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. I think a much more appropriate way of saying "acting immature" would be "acting immature". As I tried to explain above, to associate a group of people with a certain behavior, when that group of people don't necessarily exhibit such a behavior, is a bad thing to do. It is a lie. And it is offensive to call people something bad when you don't even know them. A.Z. 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth would my saying "acting immature" instead of "acting like a 12 year old" have helped? If I'd said that, you'd be complaining at me that I'm lumping immature people into a group and associating them with a certain behavior. It never ends. Yes, I agree that it's best to talk about problematic behaviors rather than problematic people. But, if you read my original remarks closely, you'll see that this is exactly what I did. Friday (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with lumping immature people into a group and associating them with a certaing behavior, since the requirement to be in that group would be to exhibit said behavior. However, the only requirement to be in the group of 12-year-olds is to have been born 12 years ago, while being immature is not a requirement. So, it does end, and I would never complain if you said "gay people are acting like gay people" and "that black guy just did something, therefore he acted like a black guy" and "that American is being American", and things like that, because they are not saying that an entire group of people have the characteristics of another group of people, as you did when you said that people that are in the group of 12-year-olds are also in the group of people who act immature. A.Z. 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really interested in words games, sorry. Friday (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither am I. This is something really serious and important, and I tried over and over again to communicate a clear message which, for me, happens to be quite obvious; I thought I would not have to explain anything to you, because you're not stupid and you would immediately understand that you had discriminated against a group of people, calling them immature. I thought you would rephrase what you said as to avoid such a discrimination. I'm really sorry I couldn't communicate to you effectively, and I am really sorry that you, even though you didn't understand what I meant, accused me of playing word games, instead of assuming there was some good intention in my actions. A.Z. 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"The obvious solution is: characterize unproductive behavior as such, and not as the behavior of a group of people that have nothing to do with the subject in the first place." True Story

Saikano

He's back as User:Lolichan4u (contribs) it seems. :(

I hope it's not him, but I don't think there's really any question at this point. Leebo ^T/C 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi, I saw your message. I hope I don't look like I'm dumb, but I'm going to have to ask what desist means, because I've never heard that word in my life. It must be some computer term, I'm sorta new to this stuff. Thanks again.--User12 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your comment. I thought you were trying to help, but apparently not.--User12 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How to create a userpage

Hi again, and many thanks for your welcome. As I said in my question. I created a user ID (which at least allowed me to put in a question which is great!), and then followed links to the Userpage page, but couldn't find any link etc to explain how to CREATE a userpage. This strikes me as being a fairly fundamental flaw on the page. Please forgive me if I've missed something monumentally prominent, but I truly don't believe I did. And I need help. Obviously. Many thanks in advance. Lorwood 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

THANK You! I hadn't gone into User talk before now, so hadn't come across the tab. You are most kind! Lorwood 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the userpage revert.--Isotope23 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know....

I mean, the thing about a page on Wikipedia is that it has its own rules. It can be edited by anyone, and, if those edits are made in good faith, then that legitimates them quite a bit. Additionally, pages on Wikipedia require reliable sources. It's not like a document that outlines how an off-Wikipedia medium should behave that can be written and maintained and controlled solely by the people who are fans of that medium. Imagine the users of SomethingAwful demanding that they alone be allowed to edit and describe SomethingAwful on an article at Wikipedia. The clueful people full of chutzpah would bash them to a pulp! Geogre 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A favour

Hi Friday. I have a favour to ask of you, though understand if you are too busy, or just not interested. The request is that you read over the evidence at a case of suspected sock & meatpuppetry for votestacking, briefly conclude the case and take whatever action you feel is necessary in response.

I would do it myself, except another editor provided a lot of evidence to my anonymously, and asked me to provide it for the case. I obviously checked it and found some more evidence which I felt compelled to report. So, the consequence of this is that I now appear to be the one bringing the case, and therefore think its inappropriate for me to close it and decide what action should be taken. I did ask for assistance at AN/I but only really received feeback from another admin that is heavily involved, and therefore its not really ideal he acts either. Its kind of slipped off the radar now and I just think its serious enough that, assuming you are convinced with the evidence, it doesn't go to the archives resolved:

• The sock/meat puppetry evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits
• The checkuser on the one likely sock: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits
• The AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#Vintagekits again
• The user: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have (semi) spammed TenofAllTrades talkpage with the same request, in the hope one of you doesn't mind trawling through the evidence. Thanks. Rockpocket 01:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack. I looked at some of that stuff, but there's a lot there and I don't know what to look for specifically. Is there a way to resolve this without needing to know for sure if they're sock and/or meatpuppets? If they're being disruptive, is that enough to do on? Friday (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, VK has a long history of incivility, but apart from a few NPA violations, there isn't much to complain about their behaviour in this instance apart from his votestacking. I think the evidence for votestacking is compelling, and the checkuser pretty much seals it. If there are no takers for closing it in the next few days, i'll just issue a stern warning that anymore misbehaviour like this will lead to a block. Rockpocket 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE

please repost my monesekuma monster so i can get my info back, it took me a long time to type that. then u can delete it afterwards

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your tireless contributions I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But.. I am tired. Does it still count?! Thanks! Friday (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Merkey

Keep up the good work with Merkey - you've been acting appropriately as an admin and editor, contrary to his claim. And you have offered to help him. Your guidance and help has been appreciated. I'm sorry I've been absent from the dialogues on this lately. -Visorstuff 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Friday (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

why did you delete kavel i just started i bet you wouldnt like it if i deleted your page why did you it it was my first page i was hapy til did that

Steve Pavlina delete?

Regarding the delete of Steve Pavlina article - the site gets millions of hits a month, and destroys Tony Robbins in popularity, who wikipedia retains a massive article for.

Check alexa for StevePavlina.com traffic versus TonyRobbins.com

The article would need sources. See WP:BIO for guidelines on biographies. Friday (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the specs on that page and resubmit the article.

You are assuming West Rockers is my band. They are a critical independant artist collective for the west-indian scene in New Haven and New Haven County, Connecticut. I am going to have contributions from a writer at the New Haven Advocate this evening.

Please hang on

The West Rockers have been cited in several New Haven Advocate publishings as well as the New Haven Independant. They have been cited on the Cafe 9 website several times and also in the well known Firehouse 12 studio+label+bar. They have videos with many viewings available at YouTube here and here

Local bands get in local papers. And, so they promote themselves on the internet- anyone can do that. We need proper sources, and significant coverage. Google results did not look at all promising. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of everything that exists. Friday (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

wishtank deletion

What is your purpose in deleting this entry? The last time I put up an entry for this magazine, it was deleted under the false cause of "blatant advertising," which it certainly was not, so I edited the language to make it even more simplified, and now you're telling me it doesn't assert our importance. If I asserted our importance, that would seem to be an advertisement no? Aren't wikipedia entries supposed to be unbiased, straightforward informative articles. If you are going to delete this, please suggest how I could make it suitable for your editors, as I have tried three times to offer honest, unbiased, straightforward information about a resource, and each time it has been deleted for reasons that seem to contradict one another. How does this entry differ from any other magazine's wikipedia entry that have managed to survive?

List of tequila brands

I'm not an expert on tequila (heck I didn't even know there were brands), but this list seems unnecessary; a lot of red links that if were blue would probably be redirects to tequilla. Should it be prodded or am I being too critical on a subject I know little of? -WarthogDemon 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say go ahead and prod it, if you're so inclined. We have a category for tequila, so that provides a way for people to find tequila-related article. A bit list of mostly red links provides little encyclopedic value that I can see. Friday (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

XeNTaXWiki

Hello,

Awhile back (on October 22, 2006, to be exact), you deleted the article XeNTaXWiki, to which I was the only contributer. While I understand your reasoning for deleting it, and I'm not going to contest the deletion, I am requesting a copy of the deleted text and markup. I realize that the wiki itself is not really much in the way of good article content; however, I would like to expand that content with information on the organization. If you decide to provide me with the deleted content, please post it on a user subpage of mine. Thanks in advance! --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Friday (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Heh, seeing it again makes me realize, it wasn't nearly as good as I thought it was... --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No edit conflict

Hey, Friday. I see that you and I both posted in the Naconkantari thread on ANI (making much the same point, in fact). Mine was stamped ten minutes after yours, and looks like I top-posted above you. This is just to assure you I wouldn't be so rude—I never saw your post, until after I'd saved, and absolutely did not get an edit conflict. The way it works seems very capricious, I've had the same thing happen on ANI several times. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

No worries. I have decreasing confidence in the mediawiki software lately. The sooner they reimplement this on a serious platform, the better. Friday (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tomatocow

Why did you delete the page on Tomatocow? He works as an advertiser and his work is noted in Japan and across the internet. I've seen plenty of articles about people much less notable. RTexasUSA

It appears to be about some guy with a website. There are no sources, and I see no assertion of significance. I've got websites too. Friday (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

DUDE! I was in the MIDDLE of editing it. I saved it so I didn't lose the work while I added tags. Why did you not just post a warning on the talk page? RTexasUSA

I'd hate to see anyone putting much time into it, if it's going to be deleted. From the content that was there, it sure didn't look like anything that was going to turn into an encyclopedia article. Are there sources? Without proper sources, there's no way an article on some website will survive. Friday (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I already noted that I was in the process of adding sources when you and the other dude decided that it would be a cool thing to tell your friends that you deleted another article. RTexasUSA

I can't control what other editors do. If you're interested in posting an article that won't get deleted, finish it before you hit "save". Lots of people look at new pages and delete the stuff we can't use. Friday (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting it again. How about giving someone more than five seconds before you delete it? RTexasUSA

Dood! Why not post it in your userspace at User:RTexasUSA/Tomatocow and edit it to perfection, then check back with Friday to triumphantly tout its encyclopedicality? Anchoress 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Now why was that so hard for them to do instead of just deleting someone's article for absolutely no reason? Why would it be so hard to say "Hey, this doesn't look notable. Move it to your user page before I delete it?" However, there are still many, many article much less notable than the one I posted. Thanks Anchoress for actually being a civil person about it. User:RTexasUSA/Tomatocow

Curses! I hate it when people triumphantly tout their encyclopedica..something! Friday (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs)

User owns several sock-accounts, and has much connections to several sockpuppets. this might be interesting? He is also did some rather useless edits, and marked several articles for blocked users for deletion, without even watching sources. He also triedv to change his own RfA, months ago. here, connections with the vandal Murlock can bed found. I think, you'd better ban the user indefintelt now; he has got away with it to often. block him indefinetly, and protect his talk-page, so that he cannot svae his ass this time. Just the way you blocked Haggawaga - Oegawagga aswell. Randalph P. Williams 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he still doing bad things? Honestly, I care way more about practical concerns than I do about any notions of justice. I'll keep an eye on him but I don't immediately see anything that obviously looks like it requires a block. Friday (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Water Badger talk

Hi, I can see the sense of preserving the talk page for this article (in the event of future re-creation). I nominated it for deletion because I thought that was the norm for talk pages whose article didn't exist. Is it generally best to leave such orphaned talk pages alone? pablomismo_|\talk 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal either way, but I don't generally like deleting them. It may be useful if someone were to recreate the same page later, we can point to it and say "Look, here's why it was deleted". I don't see that an orphaned talk page hurts anything- people won't hit it with "random page" for example. I'm sure plenty of people do delete them as a matter of course, but I think it's often better to leave them there. Friday (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Still finding my way, grateful for any input. pablomismo_|\talk 21:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

88.110.36.59

Wouldn't it be better to permablock User:88.110.36.59, as he/she apparently was stalking one editor's edits and was threatening the other on the talk page. -WarthogDemon 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is little point, the troll has a non-static IP, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Light current. Rockpocket 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Big Meanie

I am trying to add an entry about the band Big Meanie (which was speedy deleted). I believe the band is relevant as it was a predecessor of the band Driving East (now on Militia Group records) which is a band on The Warped Tour.

The article had almost no content. If you can write a well-sourced encyclopedia article on this topic, go ahead. For what it's worth, all music guide has nothing on them, which usually indicates a lack of coverage in proper sources. Friday (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, just because one of the guys went on to be in an apparently borderline-notable band, doesn't mean everything he's ever done can have an article. See WP:BAND for some guidelines on bands, but more importantly, a band needs to have significant coverage in independent sources for there to be an article. Perhaps these other bands could be mentioned briefly in Driving East, if they're really relevant to it, and sources can be found. Friday (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-submitted the article prior to your second comment. If you still feel it should be removed, I'll live with that and maybe try to go with your suggestion about adding it to Driving East's page.

The article is still completely unsourced, for what it's worth. Friday (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

black jack mafia

listen i was there when they made the gang cris was a good friend of mine he told me about it everyday after its creation i was in it until it became a real gang they keep it on the downlow because they dont want people knowing about it yet thats why you couldnt google it.so if you put this up you'll be the first to relesse this to the public.

Wikipedia can never be the first place for something to be covered. We only use material that other sources have already published. Friday (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Winner!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for your message here Kwsn(Ni!) 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, somehow you can't put url links in those. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Friday (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

1 day

Look can we leave it up for one day, and see if people contribute to it, just 1 day, this guys known so well, people will be all over this page.

Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources. Friday (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deal

He's been published, if I link in sources, are you going to let it go? You want a copy of his thesis posted? Let me know and I'll take care of it.

Thanx!

Making deals isn't really how wikipedia works. Having a thesis is hardly enough for us to have a biographical article on someone. Friday (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyska

Friday please allow me to create the Tyska page. I originally had the information at Tyska.net which you also initially deleted and then thought you did not like that article title because of the '.net' so I moved the content to Tyska, and then the page was promptly deleted. I am creating the Tyska page to explain the site and so that Tyska.net can be added to the List of Wikis. I am not trying to SEO spam or anything and I don't care about including an external link to tyska.net either so if that is why you are deleting my pages then please just remove the link.

Does this topic have significant coverage in reliable sources? Friday (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Then no deals

just tell me what you want....I mean is your prerogative that if you've never heard of someone they can't have an article? I 'random article' search and find information on millions of things I've never heard of, isn't that the essence of information based protocol?

It has nothing to do with what I've heard of. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources. Friday (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Christopher beck article is back, this time created by another account, User:Irishwrath --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Secret Broadcast

My band was added to the "Warped Tour 2007" definition. I added a link to our website with the intention of writing a bio shortly after and it was instantly deleted. Your response was "let's keep it a secret" Why was this is a problem?

If you can write a sourced encyclopedia article on this topic, by all means go ahead. I deleted it because there was no content, just a link to a website. We get people confusing Wikipedia for a website directory all the time, so we routinely delete this stuff. For what it's worth, all music guide has never heard of your band. This usually indicates a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Friday (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

myudutu

Why did you immediately delete my article on the myudutu authoring tool?

Thx. Roger

myudutu still has no information listed

can you please give me back a copy of the article I submitted. i took pains to be objective and unbiased. This free web app tool marks a significant movement in the online learning industry, and the listing should have something added to it. please advise why you deleted it instantly. (you couldn't have even had time to read it)

It was unsourced. A quick google reveals nothing that looks like a proper source. Unless a topic has gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, we can't have much of an article about it. I can restore it to your user space though, in case it can be improved on. But, without sources, there's little hope. Friday (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I own the website all this information has come from as well as the term LOTAR here in the United states but when I have tried to add info on the system and how it has historically changed I have had this response..

User talk:Ronin6969 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] July 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to LOTAR CQB. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Q T C 07:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOTAR CQB, Lotar Krav Maga, and Modern lotar A tag has been placed on LOTAR CQB, Lotar Krav Maga, and Modern lotar, requesting that they be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the articles seem to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. If you can indicate why the subject of these articles is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add on the top of the pages and leave a note on the articles' talk pages explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the articles that would help make them encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the articles will be verifiable. Kablammo 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Lotor CQB, you will be blocked from editing. Pat Payne 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronin6969"

I have tried to add all of these pages and cannot please help me figure it out…thank you…

I do not know how else to contact you...also my copy right on the word lotar was not protected as it links to KAPAP right now and it should not...they are different systems and I own the term LOTAR here in the US...I just wish to put up info on the system and how it has changed since it has come here from israel...please let me know what to do..

My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to Essays on your userpage...

Love these. I am linking to them on my userpage. Miranda 18:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My frequent babbling occasionally produces coherent results :) Friday (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi. I've filed an abuse report on the topic of Light current and his socks; see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. Feel free to add or amend as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

Due to the situation, we cannot grant his right to vanish. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't keep anyone from going away. If the pages shouldn't be deleted, let's not delete them. Friday (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You did exactly what I was hoping; remove everything but the banned tags. He can leave Wikipedia, but we cannot just use "right to vanish" until ArbCom feels differently. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Friday (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Live dangerously

It is far more fun :-) Giano 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh. We have plenty of drama going around without going and trying to make more. Friday (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Drama and fun are not the same thing at all. Giano 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I certainly have no reservations whatsoever about killing whatever sacred cows we have around here, but I don't think your edits were likely to produce much in the way of useful results. Friday (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Flying monkeys dutifully carrying a new admin into the channel.

File:LowlandGorilla.PD.jpg

Helper ape dutifully coming to eject an unwelcome admin.

So these two images here the first (left) was allowed by the IRC crew to remain so what was wrong with the second (right) - I laughed myself stupid when I saw it - didn't you? Giano 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's funny. And, if critics assert that some admins are unwelcome in the channel, the page should probably say so. It's not an article but I see no good reason to not have the page be as neutral as possible. I'm still at a loss why we're using Wikipedia's dime to advertise some private club, but as long as we're doing it, we should be fair and accurate. Friday (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Great: so leave it alone lets all have a laugh and see things for what they are, not frightfully serious in the great scheme of things. Giano 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert again but I suppose someone else will. It's not bad the way it is though. Friday (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't either, I have used up my 2x, I expect some new little admin will pop up soon on my page and give me a warning - never mind - it raises a smile, so all is not lost. Giano 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...but there you are [3] Now who do you suppose is supposed to "be more careful" Nevermind c'est la vie. Giano 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring for fun seems like a bad idea. Friday (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh c'mon it's hardly a serious subject, and it's not a mainspace article why not, my views are as good as theirs - probably even better! Giano 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...but the drones have heard the trumpet [4] I wish they had been so quick on some of the page s I have been looking after today, but that is not what IRC is for though is it? Giano 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I managed to make a change to that page that's stuck for a while now. Of course I took a slightly different approach.. Friday (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably need to discuss it with him [5] :-) Giano 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• You see Friday, all one needs sometimes is a catylist to improve things for the better. Giano 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Or, in the case of IRC, chopping it down, knocking it over, and setting fire to it may be a very useful improvement. ;-) Friday (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TREYWiki

I see no downside to deleting TREYWiki's userpage and talkpages, if it is prefatory to his leaving, which might be best for everyone at this time. Is there any substantial objection to this? Newyorkbrad 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think deleting user talk pages is a good idea except under exceptional circumstances. They can serve as a useful record of past events. The user page I don't care so much about. Friday (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We have exceptional circumstances in the form of a user who is leaving after a very unfortunate incident of which there is no reason to retain unnecessary on-wiki references. This individual clearly needs some time away from Wikipedia and deletion will make it easier for that to occur, and may also be helpful to the individual about whom inappropriate comments were made. Admins of course will retain access to the deleted content of both pages. Unless there is a more substantial objection from you or Zscout (I have posted to his talk as well), I plan to go ahead and delete them. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, but I certainly wouldn't fight over it either. We do not need to pander to the demands of some drama-seeking kid- he can easily leave and be left alone any time he wants, he just needs to shut up and go away. Hiding the record of his past doesn't help in any way I can see. When he comes back as an alternate account, having a good record may help identify the new sock if he gets up to the same bullshit. Friday (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

People who say they are leaving and then actually do leave should be accommodated, I think, in reasonable requests concerning the record left behind. Of course if he says he's gone and comes back a couple of days later that's different. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's a small matter really, whether the stuff gets deleted or not. It's not like it'll really be gone. I dislike the message it sends to act like we owe this guy a favor, but your mileage may vary. I've given my opinion, you have to do what you will, of course. I wouldn't delete the user talk page, but that's just me. Friday (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

Hi. You recently commented on the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence and said

Looks like a pseudo-rfc, in user space. Pointless, probably, but why delete it? Let him whine, it'll be less drama than trying to prevent the whining. Friday (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 

This is to inform you that the result of the deletion motion was: Speedy-Delete: CSD G10 (Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject).
You acknowledged that the nature of the page was that of an RfC.
This is also to inform you that an editor has already opened a Deletion Review here.
Your input on this controversy is invited.
Thank-you, Rfwoolf 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Hi, Friday, I know that you probably do not know me, but I have seen you on the recent changes page and I thought I should stop by and give you a just reward. I am truly an admirer of your work here. Ulises Heureaux 04:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Friday - not sure if I am aking the right person, but I have recently added a post titled "Rissue" -which was deleted. I'm new to this and not sure why?

Can you help?

thanks

Removal of Entry I set Up

Hi there,

Just wondering why you removed the entry I set up yesterday. Not really sure what might have been wrong with it. Any advice welcomed.

Thanks

Nprocter

Apparently you mean David W Gordon. It should be pretty obvious why this was deleted- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There's nothing resembling encyclopedic content on that page. More specifically, Wikipedia articles must use information that is verifiable from a reliable source. Friday (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reedley High School Marching Band Deletion

Let me know your reason for deleting this new page. Thanks.

It was unsourced. If the info is accurate and can be sourced, why not work this into the main article on the high school? Friday (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I can do that. I just felt like the largest high school marching band west of the mississippi could use it's own mention.

Perhaps, if it's covered in sources. google turns up very little, and a google news search reveals nothing. I don't know that high school marching bands tend to be the type of thing that gets covered in reliable sources. Friday (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sitting at your computer all dat deleting peoples legitimate articles must be a very fulfilling life

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Northcutt

Hi there. Not quite sure what's going on at this AfD, but your name seems to have been mentioned so you might want to take a look. Regards Iain99 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your behaviour

I would appreciate if you would kindly cease interrupting conversations on my talk page and cease accusing me of suffering from stress. I'm disappointed and worried with your recent behaviour too, but out of respect, I don't come across to your talk page and accuse you of suffering from mental problems, I would appreciate a return of this favour. Nick 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? If I thought anyone was legitimately concerned, I'd want to know why. But I'm not exactly sure how to take your statement in this case. It's not useful to express this kind of concern and not explain why. Friday (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll fire away. You have no regard for many of your fellow administrators, you're far too quick to jump on any bandwagon headed for RfC or ArbCom, you show a complete disregard for any notion of collegialism and you continue to disparage any administrator who uses IRC. I think that about covers it for starters. Nick 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, as far as I know, I've always not cared particularly whether people are admins or not. We're all just editors. My views on IRC have been well known to anyone who cares to read them for quite some time. What you call "no regard" is what I call not being afraid to call a spade a spade. I don't care about having friends on the wiki, so this gives me the freedom to give my actual opinions without worrying about offending a friend. Having friends (or enemies) here does not help the project, so I do my best to remain neutral. We should worry less about other editors as people and focus on their contributions. I don't see where any of this is any kind of recent change in behavior, so I'm not sure where you're coming from there.

That said, I certainly didn't mean to imply you were suffering mental problems, so I apologize. I'm not sure if I know you from your old username (I don't recognize this one) but for me to see an admin saying the things you were saying, well, I assumed stress was likely a factor. I was more aiming for a friendly sort of "please relax" message, but I see that I failed in that effort. No offense intended. Friday (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess we've just got different ways of dealing with other users and administrators. I'm going to take a few days off, hopefully peace and quiet will return to my Watchlist. Nick 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I bet you're right. And of course, it's difficult to determine someone's tone just from words in text. Enjoy your days off. Friday (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this is, but can you fix it?

[6] Anchoress 22:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note sure what that's about either, but it didn't look like a useful redirect, so I deleted it. Friday (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

What does "sockpuppetry" and "blocked" mean? I found that on User:SweetCarmen's userpage. --Kelly (scold me) 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry refers to using multiple accounts, typically in a problematic or dishonest way. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. Blocked means someone has been technically prevented from editing- this is done sometimes when someone edits in a way that does not improve the project. See Wikipedia:Blocking. Friday (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with dab page

Hi Friday: if you have a couple of minutes could you check something I did for correctness? When looking for a Barry Cooper, I noticed that there were a few, so I created Barry Cooper (disambiguation) and added a link to the default BC. Did I name/format the dab page correctly? And why does the dab page not show in the BC search results (as opposed to 'go')? Did I do the dab notification at the top of the default BC page correctly? Should similar notices be added to the other BCs? Thanks in advance, have a good week! Anchoress 08:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty incompetent with wiki formatting. Which is a bit embarassing, but hey, there are lots of people who know how to do fancy stuff, so it still gets done as needed. I think the reason it goes right to Barry Cooper when you search is it finds an exact match. Unless we have reason to believe almost everyone searching will be looking for that Barry Cooper, it probably makes sense to move the Barry Cooper to something like Barry Cooper (composer) and have Barry Cooper redirect to the disambig page. Hope this helps. Friday (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll do so. Anchoress 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Prison Planet vs Wikitruth.

Hi Friday, it's me from the 9/11 pages.

I originally thought the article in question was entitled Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services a syndicated article from OhMy News. If this were the article I could understand a little of why it's being called an attack site. To be fair it indeed is an effort to try to "expose" SlimVirgin, on the other hand what he is trying to learn is weather there is a conflict of interest. This article talks about is his history as a criticized sysop, an event that takes place on Wikipedia itself.

Now while I can sympasize with this in mind, I still think it's nuts to outright ban the website because of simply that. After all, it is facts. If Alex wrote an article entitled "Selmo: The Wikipedia Hero" which could talk about my edits about 9/11, and it included something along the lines of "'Selmo' is a Wikipedia editor who is based in the Canadian city of Vancouver.'", sure it is revealing personal information, but that has already been stated on my user page.

Ten minutes ago, I came across this bulletin board discussion from The Wikipedia Review, with a link to the real article, Time To Fight Back Against Online Disinfo Agents and Trolls which was written by the reporter, Paul Watson, but also Alex himself.

The words directed towards Morton are indeed harsh, and now I understand why WP:NPA is relevant.

Now another site Wikitruth, which is cited as a source in Criticisms of Wikipedia has also been harsh to more than one Wikipedian[7] This can be grounds of being labeled as an attack site, right?

I just would like the differences clarified. Thanks you. — Selmo ^(talk) 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Liferay

It appears to fail A7, it has no claim of notability, it doesn't appear to be more spectacular than others. Also, that is a standard template, as I saw it had been deleted previously, it appears to be my mistake. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I misunderstood some things - I have now re-answered the approriate question (Q4), and changed my stance on consensus. Could you please re-consider/re-comment on your comment? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, note those were my personal opinions of what consensus should be, not what I think it is. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

no self-promotion

Hi Friday. re your contribution on User_talk:Bo_Jacoby#Please don't use Wikipedia for self-promotion. I am not self-promoting. I was merely answering a simple question. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

Reversion of redirect on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy

Kindly leave this redirect alone. Several people have made contributions to this page while intending to contribute to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 -- this has caused considerable aggravation for all involved. Thanks. --DashaKat 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if people can't find the right page, the solution is not to redirect the wrong page to the right one - that's rather bizarre and irregular. These are two different RFCs. I don't see a good reason to cover it up with a redirect. Friday (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason you're giving the the redirect is just bizarre. You are the one who edited the wrong page, and you obviously now know which is the right one. Please stop reverting. Friday (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

The edit falsely stated I edited during my working hours. That's a personal attack. THF 19:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The diff you linked to was only changing "Ted" to "Ted Frank" in several places. But, looking more at the contents, it appears people are concerned over a conflict of interest. So, if you are editing Wikipedia as part of a job that you do, there may well be legitimate grounds for this kind of concern. I don't see how this is remotely a personal attack. Friday (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One editor claims repeatedly that he is paid to edit Wikipedia based off of his conclusion that he edits during business hours. Apart from a failure to assume good faith, this editor continues his smears even after THF explained that he is a fellow and not an hourly employee. I think this is at least a prima facie personal attack on user. Lord knows I've edited from work before, but the fact that I worked for AT&T does not suggest I was paid to edit for them. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hello! I see you removed a tag I put up on the page Sprung Monkey stating "removing speedy and hangon, looks like a legit band". I do not know whether or not the band is notable, but the user added the {hangon} tag without adding why they are notable. Also, nothing is referenced, and the wikilink for band member William Riley is a wrong link. -YeLLeY511 20:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's in poor shape. However all music guide has an actual review of the record they mention. So, they're not completely unknown. The article asserts a hit from that record. To me this is enough indication of significance that the article probably shouldn't be speedied. Friday (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

List of highways numbered 186

I'm just working on the project backlog for WP:USRD, and while I understand that there is only one item on the list, it will be a growing page, just like List of highways numbered 197, List of highways numbered 236, and List of highways numbered 514 will be; I don't see it warranting deletion. Milktaco 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, alright, I suppose they're useful for disambiguation purposes. Friday (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Friday/Sandbox

Got a rebuttal? Or will you be asking me to leave you alone? Giggy ^Talk 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Of course not. "Leave me alone" is a completely lame thing to say. I don't get what spam has to do with anything. I just really dislike this sort of canvassing and pressure tactics. Maybe it's totally not a problem in this case, if the people involved don't mind it. I have no idea of the background of this situation, I just know that the conversation I saw struck me as completely inappropriate. The whole "You better do what I say or I'll convince my chat room buddies to gang up on you" is completely unhelpful to the project. Wikipedia works better without injecting this kind of high school politicking into it. The reason it concerns me mainly is that I trust Majorly's judgment not at all on RFA matters, and I'd hate to think he's trying to exert undue influence over the process. You can tell me it's not my business, but I'm not sure I agree. Since RFA affects everyone, I see this as legitimate cause for concern. Friday (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BLDGBLOG

Hello Friday, I'm confused as to why you deleted the BLDGBLOG page

It was about a website, and had no sources and no indication of significance. Wikipedia is not a web directory, so if it's just another website out of the millions, we probably won't cover it. This topic would need significant coverage in independent sources for us to have an article about it. Friday (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I'll re-write a more validated copy later on.

Caveat (band)

My name is Casey and I play drums in Caveat. There will be no copywrite issues using the Caveat bio from the site. We are an independent band and I have full authorization to do what I please with our content. It was intended as temporary content until a more formal, objective article was written. Our agreement with Cyclone Records pertains only to publishing and distribution of our latest CD.

I'm a real newb at this. Is there anyway I can get that put back up? or do I have to do it again?

Thanks

I honestly don't know much about copyrights- I just saw that it was a cut n paste from a website that said it was copyrighted. The other issue is notability- this band would need to have significant coverage in independent sources for us to have an article. See WP:BAND for band article guidelines. Generally speaking, people will want records on a major label or important indie label, but really it's down to sources. Friday (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete User:Jet/Userboxes

Hi. Can you delete this page please; User:Jet123/Userboxes but keep this revision for privacy issues. Thank you. Jet (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I believe I have done it. Friday (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Escuseme! You remove request for delete?

Why you do?

I place request for delete on ham. Is there not suppose to be a deletion review process? I try to make wikipedia good place for all - I have never heard of this meat. It is not notable, and clearly doesn't exist?

Thank you miss! 67.60.57.82 20:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)