User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/07

Relisting and Stubble

 * Articles for deletion/Stubble (webcomic)

I've decided to bow out of the Stubble AfD. Though I still think the re-listing -- and immediate re-listing in general -- is a bad idea, the fact of the matter is the discussion has turned from the topic at hand to larger AfD issues that are already being discussed in multiple venues elsewhere. The deciding factor for me was Isotope23's belief that it doesn't matter in the context of AfD who the primary contributor to an article is. I disagree with that sentiment far more than I do the re-listing itself, but to argue it in Stubble's AfD would have been pointless. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, this will be with you always
You made light of his blatent outrage And directed me onto the talk page Though I tried to handle This shameless vandal He consistently declined to engage

StrangerInParadise 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sasha Ogata
Hello Brenneman, I'd like you to take a look at the Sasha Ogata article and give me your opinion. I think I added enough info to show that she deserves an article.--Moosh88 05:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you could move the page for me, that would be great! Then maybe you can help me better the article too?--Moosh88 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of S. Boombox
Sorry for that screw up. Thanks for your message. Cheers. Anagnorisis 06:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-improvement
Hello from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2006. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to kindly give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Oops
I didn't see that you'd closed LUEshi (5th nomination) in between when I put the inuse on it and when I closed it. This would not be a problem but for the fact that I closed it differently than you. If you'd like to have your version stand I'll not be fussed. brenneman {T}  {L}  08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I think that you are one of those who don't endorse the "binary" school of AFD closing, but I do (and of course, O know best right? :-)). In that school a "merge" result and "keep" result are the same thing, at least administrerially speaking, since they can be altered by any editor without needing the admin tools. If you think that it's better to merge the article then don't let a "keep" result prevent you from being bold and merging it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LUEshi
I really have no idea what's going with the last AfD. You seemed to have been in the proccess of closing it, when Sjakkalle closed the AfD. You overwrote his decision, and then Silensor reverted back to Sjakkalle's close. Any insight would be helpful.--Toffile 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite dissapointed that someone who had participated in the AfD chose to take this action without apparently looking at the respective talk pages or leaving me a note talking about it to me first. This is very bad form, especially in light of the fact that a "merge" results is a non-binding "keep".
 * If nothing else, it's given my a strong motivation to ensure that both of these articles conform to our verification policy. Since a website cannot be used as a source about itself (bias and all) I'm quite sure that if we shine the light of WP:V on these they will melt like last year's snowman.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this the verifiability policy we actually have, or the strange mutant version you keep espousing? Phil Sandifer 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that I can count on your participation on the pages during the following weeks and months. brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, since you seem so deeply confused about this, I'll try to spell it out:
 * From Verifiability:
 * "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources", (bolding theirs), and
 * "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources" (bolding mine).
 * I believe the mistake that your are making is that you are considering a werbsite to be a "primary source" with regards to itself, and thus we can take material directly from a website to place in an article about the website. This arguments makes a couple of conceptual flaws.
 * From Reliable sources:
 * "A primary source provides direct evidence for a certain state of affairs. This may mean that the source observes a state of affairs directly, or that they observe indirect evidence of it," and
 * "Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication."
 * So we cannot take material directly from a website about that website because they are niether a primary source nor (even if they were) are they a credible publication in most instances. Even if we were to allow that they were both a primary source and that they were a credible publication, Reliable sources further states "...personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, [...] are not acceptable as sources."
 * I grant that in two places there is mention of things being used as sources "about themselves". These are asides, and contradict the explicit wording of the rest of the policy.  I've started a discussion thread on the talk page regarding them.
 * I welcome your input on this, but it's quite clear that we should never use websites, webcomics, or video games as sources about themselves.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  03:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The drivel you cite is exactly why "reliable sources" is a guideline and is unlikely to become more anytime soon. Phil Sandifer 13:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that characterising what (in my read anyway) boils down to "we can't use a source as a reliable source about itself" as "drivel" advances the conversation, but I could be mistaken. + +Lar: t/c 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, was there a synonym for "So wrong that a part of my brain actually screams in agony and tries to run out my ear at the sight of it" that you preferred? Phil Sandifer 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So wrong? So you believe everything you read on the web? David D. (Talk) 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No more than you believe nothing you read on the web. My point is that reliability is a more subtle issue than can be handled with blunt objects like policy. Phil Sandifer 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the spirit of a rule is more important than the literal wording. But more often than not I find this has opened the door to a lot of vanity and OR on wikipedia. Possibly not in this case, but sometimes (maybe more often than not) blunt objects are required. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Snowspinner, in my view, that level of sarcasm does not help keep things collegial. I apologise for any misunderstanding but I'll nevertheless ask again. Do you agree or disagree with "we can't use a source as a reliable source about itself"? If you disagree is that what you meant by "so wrong..." and why do you disagree? If you agree, then are you saying that what I said is not what Aaron said, or something else? Thanks in advance for clarifying.  + +Lar: t/c 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

LUEshi
There's probably going to be a revert war at LUEshi. Hiding talk 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, if individuals insert (or re-insert) material that does not meet out verifiability requirements with redards to reliable sources that is unfortunate and should be corrected. *sound of cluebat smacking into palm* I saw your edits and am watching with baited breath. - brenneman  {L}  01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, it's just avoiding the 3RR that worries me. I'll have to add a few more cite templates to the article.  Next are the other GameFAQS articles, but I might wait on those a while. Hiding  talk 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that with the pellucid and watertight explanation that you provided there will be no problem only limited bloodshed collateral damage disruption. -  brenneman  {L}  13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you have worms hanging off your tongue, Aaron, I believe it is "bated" breath rather than "baited". Hope that helps. + +Lar: t/c 13:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Request for review
I think that was a reasonable decision in a particularly complicated case. The community consensus was a probable merge but no one suggested how such a merge could best be accomplished. This gives the article editors all the resources they need to carry out their task. Well done. Rossami (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: NTSA
Well, the only reason I used that template is because I couldn't remember which other template should be used (TempUndelete), as it is not written anywhere visible, and the mysterious acronym is plastered prominently at the top of DRV. I personally think that pages should be protected, because them remaining open will cause wikilawyers to push for an infinite loop of AFD -> DRV -> AFD because of new edits -> DRV again -> go back to the top, as in the case with Brian Peppers, but I understand what Tony is saying and I can see why editing could be beneficial, so I haven't really made up my mind as to what the correct course of action is in regard to protections... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. We all keep complaining about the acronum, but not fixing it.  Yes, must get on that, tomorrow maybe...  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Double closes
Yeah, the double closes are quite strange, it's happened to me a few times.

Perhaps it's a database problem, making it hard for me to think of rhymes.

But yeah, pretty strange. As for you closing after me, even if we're different, go ahead, I don't mind if you close it the way you do. I'm usually pretty easygoing when it comes to closing AfDs. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What actually happens in a double close? Two admins both think they have closed an issue? 59.167.114.174 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that was me not logged in. Ansell 08:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This happens because you were using the edit link on the daily-log page. Pressing that means you only open the page from the section heading down and don't see the closure tag that has been applied since you opened the daily log. Since you don't edit at the same time, there is no edit conflict and you don't realise until you actually see the debate subpage after pressing save. You'd see it if you were to explicitly click on the "Project page" button before closing a debate. -Splash talk 13:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes to self
I have to: brenneman {T}  {L}  05:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk page header, including "To do" mess
 * Clean up after tvrage close - check red links
 * IOCC - what's going on
 * Scour old talk pages for missed business

List of internet search engines
The reason I added to the Desktop search engines section was because it has nothing to do with what the title of the article or even the introduction. Why did you removethe mergto without any disscussion or even mention it in your edit? Benn Newman 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I made a mistake. I had opened the window just after Stevensraymer@comcast.net had made his changes, and (apparently) I used the "rollback" button after you had made yours.  I didn't even know about your edits until just now.  I'l replace them, thanks for being patient with me. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

PAIN
I realise I have allowed myself to be sucked into a confrontation with two POV editors and for reacting poorly I am guilty as charged. As stated elsewhere, I had already withdrawn from the articles in dispute but it appears they wish to hound me further until they get their pound of flesh. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Garglebutt
I haven't updated the links on the Personal Attacks page because I wasn't sure anyone was paying attention.

This is actually getting quite serious now. This link shows that this person accuses me of being a criminal. This is grossly defamatory and totally false. Not only should the user putting up such lies be blocked but I would appreciate its complete deletion and removal from all versions of the article. --2006BC 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to see what someone says to another user on their talk page, don't look. - brenneman  {T}  {L}  01:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to being called a "criminal", "idiot", "vicious" and other constant personal attacks. I'm not sure what else I can or should do, and am willing to listen to suggestion. Please closely look at my contributions. I have tried to make articles more encyclopedic, have absolutely not responded to attacks other than to try to minimise them and follow procedure to deal with them. I have contributed new articles and will continue to contribute as best I can. I thank you for warning User:Garglebutt that his behaviour is outside Wikipedia policy. I hope there's immediate action if it continues. I specifically refer to his Talk page which continues to show a personal attack. Can you please ensure this is removed? It would be the easiest and most stupid thing in the world for me to respond with a personal attack on my user talk page about him. I don't wish to do so. I just wish the personal attacks to stop, and I call on you to bring them to an end. --2006BC 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict there but I stand by the above and ask that you remove the personal attack on my behalf. If not, is it permissible for me to respond with a counter personal attack on my user:talk page? I really don't want to do so but feel you are leaving me with no choice. --2006BC 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Webcam
I notice you removed all tha' external link

from entry 'webcam', and here's what I think:

While mostly those seemed rational redactions

One or two, homie, were over-reactions.

What you think of my editing trajectory

If I added a link to open directory?

This would match the spirit, or so methinks

of the 'fansites' provision for external links.

Mike1024 (t/c) 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Best edit summary on a talk page, ever
[here: ] KillerChihuahua?!? 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya but the problem is, it's all petering out. Smurrayinchester bailed early (maybe because nobody did anything at all?) which really made it lose credibility in my view. Ya ya, I know, fix it... I'm just not sure HOW. + +Lar: t/c 14:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)
Fair play and all, but if you address the original afd, I don't think any consensus ever developed over a decent version of the article. The vanity vote was addressed, the nonsense vote is itself nonsense, the POV and pointless comment is irrelevant. The cartoonist has been published in nationally published magazines, and I personally tend to feel that makes someone notable. I also think your edit summary referring to six deletions is somewhat biased, the actual article has only been deleted once, the rest were a result of beaurocratic warring.

I would also hope you would agree that no decent version of this article has ever been properly discussed at afd. The drv was damned contentious, and I don't think the issues were ever discussed, the whole thing was inane. There was no clear process that was under review; a non-admin kept the page, an admin over-ruled. Another admin over-ruled that over-ruling and it all went downhill. The article was nominated for deletion 8 days after creation, no-one had attempted clean up and it would be nice if the article had been given a chance. Can we not agree some sort of compromise on this issue?

If you look at the edit summaries of the article, it's been recreated by User:Gaius Cornelius, the same person who tagged the original article as POV. I notice a distinct lack of discussion from you on that user's talk page regarding this issue. Do you think you're moving this forward in the best manner? That template is for titles which should never have articles. Do you think that applies here? I look forward to your response on this. Hiding talk 10:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, so scratch that, I found the drv. You don't make it easy do you?  A link on the talk page would have saved me a wasted hour composing the above. Hiding  talk 11:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, this will prove contentious, but Template:Deletion review. What do you reckon? Hiding  talk 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, template:Drv, upon which there is no consensus to use or not. Even more contentious!  I cannot wait until these comments return to bite me on my bum... I apologise for the monologuing upon your talk page. Hiding  talk 11:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I had concentrated too much on the multiple re-directs and sorting on the admin-antics. I had failed to do a more than cursory examination of the most important part, the deletion discussion.
 * I'll cop the serve

Every concern that you raise above is spot on. I considered a note on the article's talk page, but thought that the link in the template to DRV was enough. In retrospect, it would have cost me nothing extra to make a note on the talk page, and in future I'll almost certainly do so. I had also composed a note on User:DollyD's talk page, but must have mistaken "preview" for save as I am wont to do. I've left that message now.

Thanks for the well-deserved ear-bashing, and please do keep letting me know when I screw up. Round two of the Treasure Hunt is coming up, and it will have an admin section!

brenneman {T}  {L}  12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I like you better when you're not so considered. :) Um.  Okay, don't relist the bloody thing at AFD, I can't face contorting myself yet again.  I've realised I'm politicking and I've also worked out the best solution to the damned mess. Sadly, point of WP:BEANS I'm keeping it under my hat, but I hope you'll trust me, it follows on from WP:FICTION somewhat.  Keeping the damned article isn't really the argument I'm making anymore, I guess, so don't feel obliged on my account to do much more than you have already.  Bloody can of worms. I'm tired of getting sucked into these draining debates about issues with people who seem to have already made their damn mind up or who can't address the underlying issue. It's not like the debates are crying out for one more fool to rush in. And don't flaggelate yourself too much.  It makes you go blind. Hiding  talk 13:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I find discussing the Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) article to be quite futile as very few people seem to care about anything beyond the superficial deletion polictics. However, I'll try to put it as plainly as I can.


 * The most recent Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) article did not fit any criterion for speedy deletion. It is not a recreation of deleted material.  The copy in the new article bore little resemblence to what I originally wrote.  It was written by a person with no link to me.


 * Simple research can confirm that Patrick Alexander is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Despite this, both attempts to create an article have been deleted.  No-one has EVER given a logical reason why this deletion must take place.  DollyD 06:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason given for it's initial deletion are given in the afd. The deletion was reviewed.  The version I deleted had less information than the last deleted version.


 * Each of these decisions has received wide examination and each has been found to acceptable by the community. There are arguments to be made for this article's inclusion, and an examination of those arguments would be beneficial.  I look forward to seeing these arguments and hearing reasoned discourse.


 * For my part, I will be concentrating on what to do next. I don't see any gain from re-examining the history of the article.


 * brenneman {T}  {L}  11:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Even ignoring the deletion of original Patrick Alexander article, again I say, the new Patrick Alexander article that you deleted was NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. The copy was not "substantially identical".  It was almost completely different.  The Patrick Alexander article that you deleted was "a new article on the same subject", created by a totally different user.  This is, with respect, something you should have checked before deleting. DollyD 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference between the two version was that the old version cited several sources that the new version failed to include and a short and uncited paragraph regarding the drawing style. There is no question that on those grounds the speedy deletion was appropiate.  There was no question that the closing admin was within the bounds of what is appropiate when it was originally deleted.  We're not even arguing that point, because it's taken as read.  No one seems to mind the idea of a relist, so I'm not sure why we're still discussing the old deletions. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  06:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. The Patrick Alexander article that you deleted was a new article on the same subject.  The new article was created in complete independence from the previous version, by a completely different user, and the differences are far beyond an additional paragraph and references.  A comparison of the two articles will show that they bear almost no resemblence to each other.  They focus on completely different aspects of the subject with minimal crossover.  Again, this was clearly a new article on the same subject, which the WP:CSD specifically states that this does not count as "recreation of deleted material". DollyD 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Koan
I didn't mean to disrupt the nomination cabal, which probably could have drafted a better nomination than I did, considering that I am not as familiar with smurrayinchester's contributions as some other users might be. I didn't really understand the purpose of the nomination cabal until just a few moments ago, when I investigated some the discussion surrounding it. Actually, I think it's a pretty good idea that can be implemented with the current RfA procedure even if nothing else comes of the DfA deliberations. It really is a minor detail, and I don't quite understand why it's receiving so much opposition. By the way, thanks for the unconventional comment on my talk page. -- Tantalum T  e  lluride  05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your help is needed
Hello Aaron, I need you help on an important issue. I'd really like your help in keeping an eye on user baku87. He is from azerbaijan and he recently joined wiki and is now adding baised edits to articles, mainly the Military of Armenia article and the Military of Azerbaijan article. I hope you will be able to help me with this problem, which has been escalating. Now they have three pro azeri users ganging up on me and trying to start a wiki war, which is always useless.

I also think that baku87 may have a sockpuppet, the new user's name is druffc. He just joined, and he edited some things on the Military of Armenia article which he claimed as being POV, but then added azeri POV. I am hoping you will take time to look at this problem and if it needs be, protect the Military of Armenia from edits.

Please get back to me as soon as possible, I really need your help.--Moosh88 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scot Young Research
Aaron, the creator of this article protested the PROD tag you added to it, but he put the protest on the talk page without removing the tag. I've referred the article to AfD, so if you want to contribute to the discussion, it's here. Joyous | Talk 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Siggy
Hey, now that User:Aaron Brenneman has been reduced to almost nothingness ;-), you can rewrite your sig like so brenneman  {L}  to save space and eliminate redundancy and what not. Incidentally, I've been meaning to tell you that your recent addition to this page of a TOC is much appreciated, Aaron. The page is too important, and too often read, to be TOCless. Regards — Encephalon  10:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea! - brenneman  {L}  06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Big E
You've stated that The big E has thousands of votes? - brenneman{T}{L} 01:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Feudian slip, I meant edits. Thanks -- Avi 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for something further before you voted. Might this help?
Stephen Glicker Started and Ran a multi-million Dollar Company called Supernova Inc. for 8 years then selling it. The Company has accounts with AT&T, MTV, Disney, VISA, Etc... and multiple others. Here's the link to the site: anyway, you asked, (I posted it on the actual debate but nobody seem to took notice) and here you go.--Sgore 20:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid
I still contend that the reasoning for the 50-hour block was provided earlier - sockpuppetry to circumvent block, and the new 50 hour block was to fix the first 50 hour block that somehow expired without an unblocking. Good night. NSL E (T+C) at 12:26 UTC (2006-03-18)
 * User talk:Rgulerdem


 * I tried explaining to him, he just won't listen.... NSL E (T+C) at 05:12 UTC (2006-03-20)

WP:RFAR
I have submitted an arb request against Resid and named you as a minor party, as you helped mediate the original dispute. NSL E (T+C) at 11:48 UTC (2006-03-21)
 * WP:RFAR

Resid evading blocks again
I've just had to block an IP 31 hours for block evasion (I did not extend Resid's main block though, as the post was to his own talk page, which technically he should be able to do), but I've given him a warning about evading blocks. However, I do not feel he cares about most of what I say, so I'd appreciate any help you can offer. Also, do you think it would be wiser for me to drop arbitration? NSL E (T+C) at 01:22 UTC (2006-03-22)
 * I think that we should always use RfArb as a last resort. I'm aware that the current RfC system doesn't produce that great a result most of the time, and that mediation requires some give-and-take from both parties so isn't suitable for someone truly recalcitrant, but I think that we should still "go through the motions".  I've also (selfishly) avoided looking over the actual in-depth of this, but I'm not going to be able to avoid it, am I? ^_^  brenneman  {L}  01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, mate, it is much appreciated. :) NSL E (T+C) at 02:45 UTC (2006-03-22)


 * Sorry to bother you again, I know I'm starting to be a PITA, but have you seen Resid's latest rant? NSL E (T+C) at 05:58 UTC (2006-03-22)

Re AFD
Yeah I noticed your delete vote but afterwards, revert me, my mistake. I saw a bunch of speedy keeps and the nominator voted keep also so I closed it as that. I was about to place the oldafdfull tag but I hit some AOL autoblocks so I couldn't place it so I was forced to use internet explorer when you left the message on my talk page. check google though, gets many hits. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Yuko Aoki

Also can you unblock #121771 as thats the AOL autoblock that is causing me problems. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I've yet to use this particular admin power, and while I understand the the request at least I'm not comfortable as yet actioning it. Perhaps a friendly woodland spirit who's watching this page will assist. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. If that upset you, imagine an AFD where the primary contributors to the article want it deleted in order to try to keep subpages to a minimum, yet there's a "keep and cleanup" mandate by editors who don't even bother clicking on the article and fixing typos... Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cranky
Hey dude, no sweat. I don't get mad on wikipedia. I posted another comment, hopeful humorous enough to make the point I'm not getting upset. But in all honesty, she really is a very popular model. Why her article is so small compared to some of the other Japanese models, I have no idea, because she is more popular here in Japan than most of them. Nobunaga24 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's touching that you're willing to sacrifice and research notability further on this important topic. As for article size you know what they say: small article, big... + +Lar: t/c 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Llamacon
"20:06 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination) (diff; hist) . . Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs) (→Llamacon - Deeply pained as I am to say so, delete.)" snort. + +Lar: t/c 01:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Llamacon
10:25, 21 March 2006 Aaron Brenneman (I meant it to be a plainlink, and any admin who's moving so fast he needs the bold to make the decision had better slow down. But I appreciate the thought.)

Hi. I didn't really appreciate your edit summary in that AFD article. As the person who closed the last debate I of course won't close the second one; I've also provided a rationale for my closure last time which most certainly not was just a numbers game. The reason for putting your "vote" into bold is that there are AFD bots which compile running tallies on AFD debates, and AFAIK they use the bold formatting to produce their tally. It's also normal procedure on AFD debates for "votes" to be emboldened, as you know. Either you mean delete or you don't! I'm sure you didn't mean any offence but... --kingboyk 10:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Err... you've read way too much into that. My comment had nothing to do with your last close at all. As to the bots, well that's not really my problem, my script also looks for the bolds but is smart enough to have error-catching for when it's not there. I'm also aware that there are quite a few people who think that it's a vote when it's not, and I don't see any reason to facilitate that misconception. And I'm sure that you didn't mean any offence, but altering someone's signed comment is always a little bit provocative and should really only be done when you've got no other choice. - brenneman  {L}  10:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK lads, into your corners and I want a clean fight... er, no, that's not quite right. Moldy trouts at 10 paces? No, that's not quite right either.... If there's anything I can do to help, please advise (although I think you've got it sorted now? Mostly I just wanted to be a wiseacre...) + +Lar: t/c 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting
I think WP:WSS has been there since the beginning, so you should be able to look through its history to see how it got started etc. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Large blanks
Your new page has a lot of white space between the last talk post and the bottom of the page... Is that just me or did you notice it too? Maybe due to FireFox counting the space that's hidden? + +Lar: t/c 05:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yegads, I burn up 83% of my last 175 edits on my post-modernist bauhaus user page and almost the only comment I get is a complaint! There ain't no justice.  But I alternate, Ladyhawke-like between IE in the day and FF at night, and in my current Gates-ian incarnation there is no such whitespace.  You mean down \/ there right? -  brenneman  {L}  06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, down there, and it wasn't a complaint. It was constructive feedback intended to help you resolve pressing technical issues that interfere with the usability and aesthetic values of the page. See the difference? BTW I bill 300 USD an hour for stuff like that on good days, so you should be thanking me. + +Lar: t/c 06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that, I was confused for a moment because I didn't realise that your "constructive critisicm" was relating to my "undocumented feature"! ^_^ My hourly billing structure used to be "AU$100, AU$150 if you watch, AU$200 if you help."  brenneman  {L}  06:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought that was the plumber's billing structure... At least you get paid in Aussie dollars, not Pacific Pesos (isn't that what they used to call EnZed money?) + +Lar: t/c 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Will Mcwhinney
I had to do some archaeology to work out what this was &mdash; it seems that I made it a redirect a couple of months ago, and it's since been repeatedly deleted and recreated, as it's a redirect to (and sometimes itself is) an article designed to attack a Wikipedia editor.

Now, am I flattered or offended my your comment about my Talk page? Neither, I suppose &mdash; I can't deny that it's simple fact. I have tried to clear out links that I don't use, but it didn't help much. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use interpretation
I've put the policy dispute on the village pump board in regards of the lolicon article image removal. Please respond on this issue matter there. --Jqiz 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, good of you to let me know. I haven't removed both images however, just the one image three times.  (Once initially and twice more because while fair use discussions are ongoing we're to "err on the side of caution" and keep the images off.)  brenneman  {L}  02:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have noticed that. However since you've claimed both pictures are fair use violation, there may very well be future attempts to remove it on the same grounds you've contested, because of 'past' violation, so a clarification would be most helpful.  --Jqiz 02:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh you
Yay! That just makes me want to give you hug and a kiss. Don't be so damn cuddly ;).--Sean Black (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're weird. Not that there's anything wrong with that. + +Lar: t/c 03:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So with you two around, I'm unwilling to think too much about what that says about me. -  brenneman  {L}  03:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Me either, actually. Glad that's sorted, then. + +Lar: t/c 03:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Sorry, I think I was too hasty in my decision there. I thought I had seen others speedy deleting an entry on AFD, is this permitted sometimes? Gflores Talk 06:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/VMerken
 * Replied on your talk. I must at some stage develop a consistant approach to talk pages...  -  brenneman  {L}  06:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good to me. I'll try to hold back a bit more on the delete button. Thanks for the explanation. :) Gflores Talk 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to dig up examples if you don't want to, I believe you. :) I read you loud and clear. Yeah, I forgot about closing the AFD, I won't forget next time. Thanks for the compliment, I do what I can. :) Gflores Talk 06:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Significant chocolate makers
I noticed that you removed from the Chocolate the sections "Chocolate in the media" and "Significant chocolate makers". You, in your edit summary, referenced the talk page regarding your removal. When I looked at the talk page, however, I was not able to find your name (a word search for Aaron returned no results) nor any explanation for the deletion of the section. While some removal may be appropriate per External_links, the majority of the section, I believe, is of encyclopedic value. Your other edit deleting the section describing vegan chocolate I also found somewhat cavalier, as the references to particular makers of vegan chocolate could be removed without destroying a relevant reference to the fact that most, but not all chocolate contains milk or other dairy products. For the meantime, to facilitate further edits before a consensus is reached for the deletion of this section, I will revert your last edit which deleted "Chocolate in the media" and "Significant chocolate makers". I assume your good faith, and hope that we can improve this article without deleting potentially relevant information. If I've missed an important policy of Wikipedia, please correct me, but I believe that the sections I have referenced are an appropriate addition. Thank you. Nihiltres 15:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is only a preview; changes have not yet been saved!
 * Hmmm. I clearly recall writing and previewing a medium-length message.  I'd like to blame some MediaWiki bug, but I probably just pulled the rookie move of ignoring the big red letters.  As to finding my comment, would have been easier and more efficient than a word search to look at the history of the talk page as my signature doesn't contain "Aaron."  I like the word "cavalier" as it reminds me of Dungeons & Dragons, but nothing was "destroyed" was it?  As the reversion that you performed indicates, everything is nice and safe in history, just hidden.  I'm not sure how reverting "facilitate[s] further edits" but that's ok with me.  And I too will continue to assume good faith.  Going to the talk now.  brenneman  {L}  13:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUIlander
I think that slander, libel, and otherwise defamation is becoming quite the theme of my talk page conversations of late! And I know what you mean about talk page consistency, or lack thereof... Alai 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin IRC
I see you're on irc a bit now. Have you got access to #wikipedia-en-admins? If not, you really should. Drop Jdforrester a note about it if you need access - David Gerard 19:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it thanks. The sekrit brotherhood has promised to kick me out of the anti-cabal cabal if I go to that channel, though.   So don't tell 'em.  brenneman  {L}  15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an anti-cabal cabal? It's not on the List of cabals. All cabals MUST be on that list, you know. It is now your solemn duty to go add a writeup. + +Lar: t/c 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Circumcision Cabal
Told you so. Alienus 04:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Drat. -_- I haven't looked in on this one yet... patience grasshopper. -  brenneman  {L}  05:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger
I believe that the cause of truth, justice and the American way is better served by encouraging contributors to popular culture articles to provide references, some references, any references... rather than edit-warring and making personal claims to expertise. I also believe that TheSkunk is making a (half-assed but good-faith) effort to supply references. I think this should be encouraged. I personally suggested that he put his list of (vague, un-page-numbered) citations into the article and try to tie them to the facts they support. He did move them into the article. Editors have removed the list of references, twice, without explanation.

I hope you'll help keep an eye on Freddy Krueger, the article, that is, and I'll hope you'll agree with me that references should not be removed from the article... at least, not without discussion and consensus being reached on the talk page, and preferably only when they can be replaced with better references. What I'd like to see is for whomever challenges TheSkunk's facts to supply references for their own interpretations... which of course is conspicuously not happening.

In other words, I personally take the side of whomever is trying to provide references... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree more, and I've noted my support for Skunk's references on the page. I'd like to continue this discussion, and there's some other talk with regards to websites that I'd like to see more turning over. -  brenneman  {L}  00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Washington State Route infobox
Please comment, if you wish to, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington State Highways. (I am asking you to because you took the time to write a response to the California situation.) --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 02:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Commented there, will look into it further later. -  brenneman  {L}  03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block question

 * As one of Licinius' puppets was The man from OZ, I think you can safely impute a male gender to [GRP1] members, and ditch those distracting "xer"s and "xe"s. Similarly, [GRP2] contains a user named NSWelshman. Snottygobble 01:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial contact
Robust debate at Talk:Football. User:Grant65 accuses User:Licinius [GRP1], User:The man from OZ [GRP1] and User:J is me [GRP1] of being sockpuppets of the one user, and warns them not to vote in any polls. After these users participate in a subsequent poll, Grant65 uses the sockpuppet template to tag as suspected sockpuppets of Licinius the user pages of J is me , The man from OZ , 60.225.200.50 and 60.225.202.61. J is me removes the tag on xer page and Grant65 re-instates it. Grant65 places a warning "Removing a "suspected sockpuppet" template from your own user page is vandalism."

J is me [GRP1] then blanks User talk:60.225.200.50, which contains a message associating the IP with The man from OZ [GRP1]. CambridgeBayWeather rolls back the blanking and warns that blanking is "considered vandalism." That IP is then used to apply a sockpuppet tag to Grant65's user page, accusing him of being a sockpuppet of CambridgeBayWeather. .

By vandalising through an anonymous IP within the duration of the 24-hour block, J is me became both a serial vandal and an avoider of blocks. The blocking policy clearly supports the application of a further block in such cases. I blocked for one week. Or rather, I believed that I blocked for one week, but the block log shows no evidence that I did so.
 * ''Blocking policy
 * Grant65 mentions on Talk:J is me that template abuse is vnadalism 04:35, 5 March
 * J is warned for page-blanking vandalism by CambridgeBayWeather 06:34, 5 March;
 * 60.225.200.50 places a sockpuppet tag on User:Grant65 07:57, 5 March.
 * User:J is me placed a sockpuppet tag on User:Grant65 08:54, 7 March.
 * Per Vandalism under "Abuse of tags", this was vandalism.
 * J is me's vandalism of User:Grant65 was identical to vandalism of User:Grant65 page by 60.225.200.50
 * Snottygobble places note on User talk:J is me that he's been blocked for 24 hours 09:09, 7 March
 * 60.225.217.77 placed a sockpuppet tag on User:Grant65. **P also removed the sockpuppet tag from J is me's user page sealed the deal.
 * Untouched

Within 24 hours, 60.225.218.137 removed the sockpuppet tag from J is me's user page, despite J is me receiving numerous warnings not to continue doing so. I blocked J is me for a month, per the blocking policy on vandalism.

Within 24 hours, 62.254.168.102 made an attack upon Grant65's user page, identical to previous attacks, except that the alleged puppeteer was Licinius instead of CambridgeBayWeather, and contained Grant65's signature, falsely attributing the edit to Grant65. The IP then followed up by vandalising numerous other user pages in the same way. Although the IP was different, I interpreted this as yet another incarnation of J is me, because the vandalism was so similar, and the initial target was Grant65.

The blocking policy states that "Logged-in users that repeatedly vandalise may... be blocked for... up to a month. However, by going on a vandalism spree tagging every participant in the debate as a sockpuppet, and by impersonating Grant65, the vandal had become severely disruptive. With regard to disruption, the blocking policy states that "New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently". J is me has only 21 edits, of which only three are to the encyclopaedia. In my view, an account with only three edits to the main space qualifies as a new account. Therefore I felt that an indefinite block was warranted. Subsequent events have proven that J is me was a sockpuppet of Licinius, and a permanent block on those grounds was superimposed upon my block. Therefore the appropriateness of the outcome for J is me is not under dispute.

What is under dispute is the question whether I was justified in assuming 62.254.168.102 to be J is me. NSWelshman aka Jimididit aka Jebus Christ now claims to have performed the vandalism through that IP, for reasons that I interpret as a violation of POINT. Although I do not endorse NSWelshman as a teller of the truth, I accept that it may be the case that I have made an error of judgement. Nonetheless I have acted in good faith and with due care; the presence of multiple vandals executing virtually the same vandalism against the same target, using IPs and working from the same timezone, is easily confused with a single vandal. Fortunately there were no inappropriate consequences for J is me, which has subsequently been shown to be a sockpuppet account and accordingly blocked indefinitely.

Snottygobble 01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) J is me [GRP1] reinstates the sockpuppet tag on Grant65's page. Snottygobble rolls back the tag  and blocks J is me for 24 hours. While this block is in place, 60.225.217.77 reinstates the sockpuppet tag on Grant65's user page, and removes the sockpuppet tag from J is me's user page. Snottygobble reverts, then tells J is me that xe has been blocked for one week, but the block log indicates that no such block was applied. 60.225.218.137 then removes the sockpuppet tag from J is me's talk page. Snottygobble blocks J is me for 1 month.
 * Back to touched

62.254.168.102
While this block is in place, 62.254.168.102 [GRP2] places a sockpuppet tag on Grant65's user page. This tag is slightly different from previous tags, in that it alleges the sockpuppeteer to be Licinius rather than CambridgeBayWeather, and it gives the appearance of having been signed by Grant65. 62.254.168.102 then places identical sockpuppet messages on a series of other users' user or talk pages:

The use of Grant65's signature by 62.254.168.128 results in further disruption, with the subject of one of the edits, User:TimTim, telling Grant65 "I think you are beginning to lose perspective!" . After Grant65 explains that it wasn't him who put the sockpuppet tag on TimTim's page, TimTim apologises, saying "I was thrown off by someone signing the change to my page as you".

J is me [GRP1] places a note on User_talk:J is me, that he needs to show sonttygobble [sic] up "for the unwikipedian administrator he is."

Jimididit
Jimididit [GRP2] made xis first edit on 13:42, 16 March 2006. With the section header "Football Needs You," it stated that ''Football [has been] overtaken by a fraternity of Australian Rules supporters ... includ[ing] ... Snottygobble.''

In subsequent edits xe crossposted to Talk:American football, Talk:Rugby league, Talk:Gaelic football,  Talk:Canadian football, and  Talk:Rugby union.

Xis eleventh edit was a 600 word post to Talk:Football regarding Grant65 and Snottygobble, drawing some connections between Grant65 and Snottygobble, accusing Snottygobble of "looking after your mates, of being biased and of not being fit to be a wikipedia administrator", and stating that due to a previous experience with an "admin on a power trip" it was xis "mission to hold such people accountable."

As evidence of Snottygobble's alleged misuse of power, Jimididit [GRP2] repeatedly states that the act of vandalism of Grant65's page that resulted in Snottygobble indefinitely blocking J is me [GRP1] came from 62.254.168.102 [GRP2], which "came from a different country" to the other IPs , ,.

Checkuser
Grant65 posts a checkuser request on 11:41, 12 March 2006. Snottygobble posts a checkuser request on 07:30, 25 March 2006. The checkuser reports some evidence that Jimididit may be NSWelshman, but insufficient to reach any certain conclusions or to take action. There is no evidence that the two groups are related

New user User:Whortyfour (talk • contribs) first edited on 09:35, 27 March, tagging Grant65's user page with a userbox alleging him to be a sockpuppet master. Snottygobble's user page is then edited in the same way twice. Snottygobble blocks Whortyfour indefinitely as a "vengeance vandal."

Other information

 * Jimididit is a sockpuppet of NSWelshman.[dif] NSWelshaman to voted,  Jimididit didn't vote, nor did 62.etc.
 * NSWelshman placed tags through the ip address that begins with 62 (which is an IRISH IP address).
 * NSWelshman's tag were copied the source from Grant's allegation on User:NSWelshman.
 * NSWelshman has stated that his motivations were based upon perceived bias in selective use of rollback.[diff]

NSW has stated there is too much representation from one code of football and that the article needs representation from other codes. NSW has stated he still believes there is an AFL "fraternity" with an admin "on their side."

NSW was prompted to to get Jebus Christ username back when several editors suggested the username shouldn't have been blocked after he'd posted the messages to the talk pages of the various football codes.

Snotty isn't looking for a 24 hour ban for the 'vandalism'. He's not looking for a 1 month ban like the one licinius got for voting with sockpuppets and repeated vandalism. What he's looking for is a total indefinite ban.

Block justification



 * I'd like to edit this down severly and add it into the above. - brenneman  {L}  01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Snottygobble 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with one point in the block justification section. I have never admitted to setting a trap for snottygobble and that is not what I did.  I didn't have a problem with snottygobble until after he selectively reverted my sockpuppet allegations. As I explained.  I'd like to ask snottygobble to stop putting words in my mouth please. Furthermore, I only have 1 sockpuppet and it was never used to vote.  The Jebus Christ account was closed a long time ago and is irrelevant to this discussion.  NSWelshman 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to the above point, I believe snottygobble is attempting to aply the False Dilemma Logical Fallacy.  He stated on Jimididit's talk page that if I am not J is Me then I must have baited him.  Which makes no sense at all.  But this is the false dilema he is attempting to apply here. NSWelshman 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone has been doing a good job at sticking to the facts and using dispassionate language. Let's keep that up.  I'm also going to purge this pretty soon back to WP:V levels, so be prepared. -  brenneman  {L}  11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that NSWelshman had admitted to having vandalised the articles in order to test the evenhandedness of my reverts, but I cannot find the diff. I guess I misread one of xis comments. I will redact. Snottygobble 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That Jimididit is Jebus Christ is relevant for two reasons: firstly because it wasn't until I uncovered the link between Jebus Christ and 62.etc that NSWelshman came clean; heaven knows how long this farce would have continued if I had not found evidence to relate Jimididit to 62.etc via Jebus Christ. And secondly because it plays a key part in establishing a long-term pattern of behaviour of this user; for example Jimididit's comment about being on a mission to hold accountable "administrators on a power trip" requires an acknowledgement of Jebus Christ for context. Snottygobble 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a fair comment. If there are high points regarding Jebus Christ that are relevent, they can go into the narrative above. -  brenneman  {L}  23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I count two sockpuppets: Jimididit and 62.etc. Snottygobble 12:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Policy
Was wondering if you might offer some insight regarding a disputed passage you added to WP:BP back in January? FWIW, I think the disputed passage makes sense and should be part of the policy, but it might help to have you explain it yourself. (See the discussion at the bottom of WP:BPs talk page). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Already had the edit window open over there! Thanks for letting me know. -  brenneman  {L}  06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
for guessing. — Encephalon 16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks for the nice words, but it might be a grass is greener thing. I was quite impressed by your comment here. I think you're just a little more confrontational than me, I tend to get accused of passive-aggressiveness, and wish I could be as blunt as you are. I tend to tread carefully ever since a spat early on when I got balled out for calling someone a pillock. I also try to avoid getting sucked into disputes which don't help solve the issue I want to address, which I don't always succeed in doing. C'est la vie. Anyway, cheers once again. I can't quite refrain from offering a limerick:


 * Aaron, I came to say thankya,
 * Where once there may have been rancour,
 * When you first arrived
 * I thought it was for deletion you strived,
 * And confess: I thought you a wanker.

I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me my past sins, and trust that I have seen the error of my ways. Hiding talk 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: IRC now
Sorry, no client on this machine, and I have to log out now anyhow. I'll be back online in about eleven hours, on a machine with an IRC client for around eight hours. Happy to IRC then if it suits you. Snottygobble 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly star-crossed, at that time I will be on a machine with to IRC. I'll send e-mail. -  brenneman  {L}  12:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha
I have requested a Peer Review on the article Alpha Phi Alpha because I intend to request that it become a Featured Article. I would like to ask you to review the article and suggest any changes or additions that should be added to bring it to the standard of a featured article. You provided some suggestions on my talk page regarding greek letters, and I would appreciate any feedback. Ccson 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer review/Alpha Phi Alpha/archive2
 * Ccson - Thanks for the note, I've had a look at it and also reviewed some feature articles. Looking at the education category, History of Michigan State University might be the standard you'd compare yourself to.  Looking at the article and reviewing its tone, I think you might want to withdraw from peer review until a few obvious things have been cleared up.  I'll put this page on my watchlist for a while. -  brenneman  {L}  22:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, however; what's obvious to others may not be obvious to others, that's why i have asked for another set of eyes. Please feel free to be blunt. Ccson 03:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted. - brenneman  {L}  23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * can you review the lead paragraph for Alpha Phi Alpha and provide comments. the entire article is still work in progress, just looking for comments along the way. thanks for all you do.  Ccson 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See article's talk page. - brenneman  {L}  23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If Verification Trumps Hearts...
...then what about the Dan Savage verification on the angry pirate AfD? I'm not really peeved enough to take it to DRV, just trying to figure out what would have been enough. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Angry pirate
 * Thanks mate, always good to keep a man honest. I read the article, and was already familiar with Savage.  I'm open to the argument that this demonstrates that at least someone had been talking about it, making at a meme of sorts.  Multiple sources like that one would have convinced me, but I'd call one simply not enough.  I could have left a longer closing note, and will correct that oversight.  Give me a few more references and I'll restore it myself.  DRV is what we're supposed to use when talk fails.  Spread the word on that one! -  brenneman  {L}  01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it wasn't put in the AfD or the article, from what I recall, but Savage talked about it on Al Franken's show, too. Figured I'd toss that out there.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Angry pirate
I provided the link to the Savage column as evidence of non-notability, not evidence of notability, so I'm glad we agree. -Colin Kimbrell 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhyming insult rolled back
You can cherish yours if you want, but I've rolled back mine. Snottygobble 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
I've just been attacked by User:The second man in Wiki and User:Is J is Me or are you her, and subsequently blocked them indefinitely as disruptive sockpuppets, per your indefinite block of User:Mr Man in Wiki. Snottygobble 06:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I had used that particular power. Even though I'd done work on blocking policy, I still felt poorly grounded.  I'm going to review the policy and existing guidelines and make sure I did everything correctly. -  brenneman  {L}  23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said that I had blocked "per your block"; that could be read as an attempt to shift responsibility. I have blocked The second man in wiki, User:Is J is Me or are you her and Is J is her or are you me? as new and disruptive sockpuppets, per Blocking policy, specifically: "New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently, and Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Snottygobble 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He has a new one too. User:Collins1921. This time he's impersonating me. No doubt so he can go vandalising pages with a view to me receiving the blame. See evidence linked to the suspected sockpuppet tag I added to his user page. NSWelshman 11:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

John Fullerton
You like me! You really like me! :) User:Zoe|(talk) 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your rfa
Hi. I'm not sure if you recall me (Tony's student, remember?), but I opposed your successful rfa, and looking over the majority of your contributions and talk, I must concede and bashfully admit I was incorrect in my stance. You are jolly good admin and a fine chap. Please accept my apologies. -ZeroTalk 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One of the very best. Big (and kind) of you to say this Zero. As someone who had watched the brenneman RFA very closely and worried till the end that it'd fail, I wondered at the time at your firm opposition; if you might not be persuaded to see him in another light. But one need not be concerned about such things, I suppose. Good things have a way of making themselves known. Regards to both of you — Encephalon 05:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was secretly rooting for it to fail, that early support was just a smokescreen... OK, maybe not. Aaron's indeed a fine admin, and I agree with both of you, well said. Especially you, Zero... it's never easy admitting you were wrong. (not that I need to all that much, but I digress) + +Lar: t/c 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no denying it, you're good admin.


 * Aaron is an admin,
 * who takes things on the chin.
 * His work is held so highly,
 * and I don't say this too lightly:
 * I wish he had a twin! Hiding talk 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - fine job. You know, I didn't even realize you were an admin - now I really regret not voting in your RfA after the e-mail you sent me... oh well, better late then never - EXTREME LESBIAN SUPPORT!!! Just another star in the night T 10:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

help for new wikipedian
I want to post a speech by Charleton Heston but I am confused on how to do it. Its there some type of catergorization for speeches? I dont want to make an encyclopedia page along for a speech. Can you help me on this? This is the speech I want to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_the_culture_war_in_America

How should i do it? Is this ok?

Jerry Jones 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Source material, like speeches, letters, poems, laws, reports, etc. doe not belong on Wikipedia. Our sister project Wikisource is our repository for those textual materials. (Wikicommons is the repository for images and other media). However all of material upoladed to those sites must be public domain or released under certain licenses. If the speech were so notable that people have written reviews of it, or it changed history, then we might have an article here that summarizes the reactions to the speech. See, for example, "Gettysburg Address" or "I Have a Dream". Cheers, -Will Beback 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Will-Beback-elves! - brenneman  {L}  01:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

J is me
I notice that with the issue to do with the block, you have discharged your duties with the utmost dignity and prescience. Therefore, despite my "vandalism" which I will remind you that was never taken out on any actual Encyclopedic pages from memory but on user:talk pages, I would like you to look in my permanent banning for being a sockpuppet. The accusations of sockpuppet are taken as proven when this cannot be true because I am not a sockpuppet. I was banned permanently for actions I have never committed. This makes me slightly bitter. However due to my "vandalism" being very difficult to prevent and I note that you seek to prevent vandalism, I would encourage you to look over the sockpuppeting issue. I would submit to the judgement of someone who I have seen has executed his duties with clear purpose and honesty. I do not think that the administrators did such in my case, as Snottygobble has in fact admitted saying he wrongly banned me. There has been very distinct connections between Snottygobble, Ambi and Grant65 who I feel sought to exclude my vote from a debate at talk:football which I think that you are familiar with. So could you please look over the sockpuppeting issue? I will submit to your judgement if you do and will create a new accoun if you conclude that I am a sockpuppet. I will also stop the inane commenting.

Yours Sincerely

J_IS_ME

The Original J is me 10:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Noted. - brenneman  {L}  01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Lolicon
Thanks - protecting pages is not exactly my forte', so it still is a bit of an expeirement for me. Just another star in the night T 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

re-re-used section header
Thanks, Aaron. I made the mistake of adding all the webcomic articles to my watchlist, so they're hard for me to ignore, now. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)