User talk:Avanu/Archive 5

Really?
You're using BLPN to engage in attacks on living people? What the hell... Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a well-sourced comment, grounded in reality. Please take a look at Jon Stewart skewering him on the Daily Show for his immature antics. You can consider it an attack if you like, but this man doesn't behave in a manner worthy of being a newscaster.  I believe our policies here should respect fairness and honesty in the article space, but there is no need to bring a topic like that one to the BLPN forum if the person in question has a habit of being exactly like the article suggests.  That doesn't mean it deserves to be included in his public article, but the idea that he's not a biased and frankly hateful person is inescapable. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your speech.
I am not attacking you, but simply informing you that the policies are still relevant even on the talk page. Your speech on your personal beliefs for racism causing unfair jailing is not on topic and its takes a superior tone that is unconstructive and combative citing racebaiting lines and a demeaning tone. Calling other editors names is attacking though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean saying don't be a jerk? Its impolite, you are right, but when I simply wanted to express some comraderie with a fellow editor and someone tosses out a rule essentially saying shut up, its not polite either.  I've spoken to them and consider the matter ended with them, but I think we need to allow for people to take a moment to be more than just robotic editors here.  Generally I feel that I've done a lot to keep discussion positive and on-topic, and I'll try and use even softer language to decribe behavior that I might consider impolite, but I do hope no one loses sleep over it being implied that they're a jerk. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't lose sleep over it. : ) My sole purpose in posting the reminder(s) was to promote a good editing environment for everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support - Just wanted you to know that part of the mystery was solved and I didn't imagine it
Taken from User Jimbo Wales page Mugginsx (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can explain some of it. Someone tagged Talk:William Mullins for deletion as a testpage. Mugginsx created the page with only a full stop on it (by accident I suppose). RHaworth removed the speedy. Incidentally, Mugginsx, you moved Tilley from Edward Tilley, so RHaworth was only reverting your BOLD but unnecessary move. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Elen. I am not quite sure what you mean about Edward - both names had the titles. It shows that way still on my "favorites bar" but anyway doesn't matter now but thanks for your astute observation.Mugginsx (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

About the attacks on me.
Rather then posts all the diffs, this pretty much speaks for itself. Bias one way and now the other right? I've done quite a bit to keep Martin's image proper in relation to the incident and not filled with smear and other issues and took some heavy fire for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have tended to see that you're actually a pretty neutral editor on this, so I'm not sure what that other guy is going on about. -- Avanu (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it means a lot to me to know that someone doesn't think I am aggressively pushing a POV. While little more information on Martin's end has come up, I still try to be neutral and cite both sides. Its like how I was attacked for invoking the policies into my arguments. If it goes to DR or something I have plenty of evidence to support my neutrality and their attacks. Falls under WP:ROPE actually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Avanu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This concerns TheDarkLordSeth.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth removed your comment.
I am addressing this to you because he removed your post. Per WP:TPO Deleting of another editors comments is wrong, especially given the nature of TheDarkLordSeth's actions recently. Here is the diff. Under WP:RTF, "Editing and deleting the text completely. Except for non-contentious fixes, this should only be done by the editor who wrote the material or by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause." TheDarkLordSeth has violated this and given previous note I am letting you know because it pertains to your posts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that was actually an accident. I kept seeing that happen yesterday with posts disappearing. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Peeping George
Hi, Avanu! Thank you for adding the latest mug of George Z. One quibble I have:  it looks like he's standing on his tiptoes peeping in a window. In other words, his head isn't centered in the original photo (not your fault!). Can you take a little gray off the top or add some space at the bottom so his face is even between the top and bottom of the frame? Thanks, man. --  Kenatipo   speak! 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP?
Please explain what discussion you are referring to in this edit. Maybe I am blind, but the only discussion I could find was which was in favour of images. I have started a discussion on the talk page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain what you mean by [BLP] policy regarding images. There is no relevant material on the [BLP] page, so I am at a bit of a loss to understand you.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right here: BLP "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." The entire article is really very close to an attack, and as such, adding a smiling image of Rick Santorum, as if he was happy to be a part of it, is not in line with a neutral tone and is somewhat disparaging. Please take a look at how the media recently portrayed Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in many news articles. http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news-1.jpg This is an example of subtle bias in photography. -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The full text is "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy." Your interpretation is very creative. I understand that you dislike the article, but BLP is about different matters. Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with a frowning Santorum next to his anti-gay remarks?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is my contention, and others, that this is not an appropriate addition. It is a disparaging use of Santorum's photo. Make a strong consensus otherwise and it can be added, otherwise, it can't. Sorry if you feel this is awful, but you haven't yet given a reason why it should be added to that article other than saying he made some remarks back in 2003. -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not mentioned in BLP. The image is used in context, to illustrate remarks made by Santorum. There is no image from 2003 available on wikicommons and he complained about the neologism in 2011. The article at the moment has only one photo - looks boring - and it is about a dispute between savage and santorum - it is good to see what they look like :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the page at the time of the discussion mentioned above (May 2011), I see that a non-smiling image was included next to Santorum's 2011 comments. Would you be happy with that?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have no responsibility to make the page less boring. That is a nice option if possible, but we do have a responsibility to NPOV and BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not spam
I do not like spam. Please revert yourself. Many thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is, but who does like spam? -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * /me sips his Coke. Sorry if I was unclear. What I mean is, you have posted the same message to me twice. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Please chose a page so we can continue the discussion at that page. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we don't go forum-shopping. Discussion on one page is more useful to keeping everyone informed.  The IP editor chose to escalate the discussion to a second forum. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please revert yourself on one of those pages so we can have a centralized discussion. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Von Restoroff, I don't think I've ever seen a user graph quite like this. For any admin, any long-term contributor; anyone, really. Over 50% of your contributions are to WP space alone, which is somewhat... "unusual". This disproportionate edit ratio to that sector, considering your relatively short time here and small number of edits, does not compute. I'll be keeping an eye on you, if you don't mind. Cheers... Doc   talk  05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do! Would you be so kind to do me the favor of becoming my first talkpage stalker? If so, please add my talkpage to your watchlist. Please hover your mouse over the image on my userpage, read the tooltip, then click the image and read the article. Von Restorff (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good article! Really, really good. I figured that you were no newbie! And I might have known you weren't the real von Restorff. Dang! Thanks for the "step-by-step" instructions, too. Doc   talk  06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles like that one are the reason I love Wikipedia. Von Restorff (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe he just likes to edit a lot? -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. We all do, or we probably wouldn't be here. Doc   talk  06:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. But to return back to the topic at hand, Avanu, would you be so kind to remove one of the two messages you copypasted? I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think he has any obligation to do that at all, as it doesn't look like WP:Forum shopping, and they are both talk pages that you both contribute to. They do not appear to be identical copy-pasted questions when you look at them: so you should have no problem answering both of them, should you choose to. You can, of course, ignore both of the questions, but he doesn't have to remove one, or either of them. If you ask him really, really nicely... he is still not required to do that. Doc   talk  06:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking nicely usually produces great results. If Avanu refuses I can explain I prefer to answer on one page and put a link on the other page. Von Restorff (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No argument here. Cheers :> Doc   talk  06:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting development on the article and BLP noticeboard! I think this is possibly something we can all agree on. What do you guys think? Von Restorff (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't want to know what I think, trust me. Doc   talk  07:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no reason not to trust you. Maybe you are right. On the other hand, you make me curious. I suppose I just have to learn to accept I am permanently curious. Von Restorff (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. @Avanu: sorry for all the "new message"-banners.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dogs
I changed the Seamus talk page to remove your words from there, replaced with a link - and so noted here. You're welcome to revert me or do whatever you like with it, but I think it was out of line for the IP to post your comment from one page to another without your agreement. Cheers Tvoz / talk 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus deletion
Thank you for notifying everyone that the proposed grounds for deleting the Seamus article are WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTADVOCACY, rather than WP:NOTABILITY. However, having read WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTADVOCACY, I am not convinced that the Seamus article fails either standard. I responded your your comments on the AfD page, but from a strict Wikipedia definition, gossip is material that cannot be verified to a reliable source or invades the privacy of a person, and advocacy means that material is written in a non-neutral manner with the purpose of promoting an agenda. I just don't see the Seamus article as currently written as fitting either description. If you can find something in the article which makes the article non-neutral, libellous, or a privacy violation, please notify me. Debbie W. 04:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you get that definition of WP:GOSSIP. I don't see that listed under the WP:SOAP section where GOSSIP resides.


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda
 * nor Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political,
 * nor Opinion pieces
 * Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective (this bit specifically mentions current events, but this event is 29 years old)
 * nor for Scandal mongering,
 * "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."


 * The Seamus article, as well as the Obama eating dogs article, and any of this ilk, exist to shine a light on a long ago issue in a way that promotes the very things that Wikipedia speaks against in the snippets above. Bill Clinton smoked marijuana at some point... does it deserve a standalone article? Herman Cain made unwanted advances with some women at work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was alleged by Anita Hill to have sexually harassed her. Look at these things and see what has its own standalone article and what doesn't. Bill Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky has a separate article: Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, but the marijuana isn't even mentioned in his biographical article. Seamus, while an emotional and interesting story, does NOT rise to the level of being independently notable. It is notable because of its association with Mitt Romney, but spinning it out into its own article is the non-neutral act that makes it into ADVOCACY or GOSSIP. Leaving it as a part of the Mitt Romney article would be appropriate as a footnote in his rise to candidate for president, but beyond that, it is not THAT noteworthy. You may personally feel that it is, but if you look at the overall picture and the various sorts of scandals in politics, this is practically nothing. How has it affected Mitt Romney's career? If you can say "not much", then that is about how much it deserves its own article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

more buttons
Since you ask for sysop, you may as well have most of the buttons that sysops have, so you now have WP:autopatrolled and WP:file mover. Please read the relevant policies & guidelines, use the tools cautiously to begin with, ask questions when you're not sure, yada yada. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very thoughtful. Thank you for these opportunities. I'll use them with care. -- Avanu (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)
Upon further consideration, I've decided not to post any explanatory statement to the AfD. The way I see it, so many people have already participated in the AfD, both on the "delete" and "merge" sides, that the consensus will be determined mostly based on what other people's recommendations are and why, not on my own recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Neil Swidey article about Seamus
Thank you for posting the Neil Swidey article about Seamus on the AfD page. It made for an interesting read. I added the following quote from the story to the Seamus (dog) article: Neil Swidley, the Boston Globe journalist who wrote the initial article about Romney's 1983 road trip, stated, "[Seamus] always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion." I think the Swidey story is valuable, and this was the most neutral quote that I could find in that story. Debbie W. 06:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool
. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Username Policy
Thank you for working to clarify the username policy. As changes here may affect the work performed by administrators working to review UAA I have asked for their input so we may see some other suggestions on the policy talkpage. Regards, 7  23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD closure
I have reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68. Please don't re-close it. I'm going to post a more thorough discussion below, but I wanted to start a discussion here before you start edit warring with me. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 00:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a message on Jimbo's page where Bwilkins notifies the crowd that he's doing this nom. He knew there was an RfC, in addition Ed17 placed the page under protection, which Bwilkins had to override in order to place his MfD tag. This is one admin overriding another, which I believe is technically defined as wheel warring. It is frivolous and vexatious use of time and resources to conduct an RfC seeking community consensus for this and then to have a second separate discussion on the same points and issues that may reach a different local consensus. Bwilkins knows better and should not be creating a situation like this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, you're not an admin. Per WP:NAC, non-admins are particularly discouraged from closing anything other than AfD's and RfD's, and discouraged from closing potentially controversial XfD's.  Second of all, you clearly have a dog in this fight; you are not neutral on this topic.  The current discussion at WT:UP shows this clearly.  If you want to influence the discussion at the MfD, fine, but do it by voting.  The MfD and the RfC are related, yes, but they are parallel discussions that are not mutually exclusive.  They can happen simultaneously.  The deletion of Cla68's user page does not depend on the result at the RfC, since his user page is already clearly in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, a policy.  The RfC is simply to bring the guideline in line with the policy.  Also, the MfD nomination is not pointy in the slightest, it is clearly a serious nomination as evidenced by the decent amount of support it is currently getting.  Please vote in the MfD, but don't disrupt it any further by closing it.  ‑Scottywong | spout _  00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring is one admin undoing the actions of another. An admin editing a page that is fully protected is not wheel warring.  As I said above, the RfC is only an attempt to bring a guideline in line with a policy.  The RfC does not have to be successful in order for Cla's advertisement to be removed, since it is already a violation of policy. ‑Scottywong | squeal _  00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not static. Given the intensity of the debate at the RfC (this doesn't sound like a fully settled issue), it seems inappropriate (and a bit of forum shopping) to try and leapfrog past the debate there in order to create a new forum elsewhere. -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I cannot edit the User:Cla68 page. Therefore it requires admin powers to do so. An admin should not use tools in a way that overrides the intent of another admin, in this case, protecting the page from modification, especially if the goal of the change is self-serving. In that moment you have Editor:Bwilkins desiring a modification of the page, and Admin:Bwilkins should not have been the one to make the change. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scotty, WP:NOTADVERTISING does not prohibit using a userpage to publicize offers to improve Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to what Cla68 just wrote, the decision on promotion is irrelevant to me for now, my concern is that one administrator protected the page, leaving the promotional content in place, and another user overrode that page protection, understandably with intent of placing the ostensibly neutral MfD tag, but because it was a self-serving action, he should have asked another admin to assist, preferrably Ed17. His MfD nom comes across as very pointy for the reasons I explained above, and splits time and resources. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't seen it yet, I placed the request for closure on the AN/I, requesting that an uninvolved admin review and close if they believe it is warranted. Like you, I don't want to edit war over the closure, and its makes me chuckle just a little because its YOUR RfC I'm advocating that the discussion remain at. Life's funny at times. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, you're fully misunderstanding wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL for more information.  Again, editing a fully protected page is not wheel warring, nor was it inappropriate in this case.  Bwilkins has done nothing wrong, and there is no reason to close the MfD early.  Feel free to discuss it at ANI, I highly doubt you'll get a different result there.  ‑Scottywong | talk _  01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheel warring isn't even the main point. It was just something I took note of when I went to close the MfD and checked the log and realize the protection was in place before the MfD tag went in. But my main point is related to your RfC. Doesn't overall community consensus generally trump local consensus? In other words, if the outcome of the RfC is a finely worded ALLOW, but the MfD says DISALLOW, which one do we listen to? ESPECIALLY because they are both debating the same catalyst here, which is the User:Cla68 page. -- Avanu (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dirty Harry
I enjoyed the Dirty Harry reference at AN. That was good. Sad to say though, it is also true of a few admins. Kudos for bringing up the issue. Here's to hoping it will help the situation. Best regards. 64.40.54.81 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hoping a little humor helps :) -- Avanu (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?
You might have put a comment in another section of the Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 than you intended. Your comment in Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 seems to be directed at ELLs comment in Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Just remove this comment after reading it if you like. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Identifying reliable sources
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing
Hi. I saw your comment here. Not to be rude, but your post seems rather naïve and uninformed. You rightly suggest that there are fundamental underlying principles at stake and that the surface-level debate is just that: surface-level. Cla68's actions, in a vacuum, are insignificant and unimportant. However, there's quite clearly a much larger ongoing debate about what it means to be a Wikipedia contributor and what kind of content Wikipedia wants to accept.

It isn't about the money directly, which is where I think you're getting confused. One of the biggest underlying concerns is the effect of the money on the content being produced. There is reasonable evidence to suggest that people getting paid to edit will not be able to do so in a neutral manner. A lot of people have tried to make money off of Wikipedia and very few have been successful. "I'll write you a featured article for a $1000" is not a sustainable business model, or at least there isn't any evidence to suggest that it is. "I'll fix up your Wikipedia article and ensure that it puts you (or your product or your company) in a positive light" is a sustainable business model, and there's plenty of evidence to support this. And that threatens a key tenet of Wikimedia wikis: NPOV.

Is it an issue for people to make money? No. In fact, it's because most people make (enough) money elsewhere that they're able to find time to contribute to a volunteer project such as Wikipedia. But to simply suggest that the insertion of a profit incentive into a project such as this one is no big deal misses way too major points (and nuances) of Wikipedia to be taken seriously. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I would prefer a more direct debate over the proper issues, rather than so many hypotheticals and tangents. I'm not missing the clear and realistic point that money is a big incentive to edit unethically, but at the same time, encyclopedias like Brittanica didn't have to have a zillion staff members arguing about things like we do. Surely they had debates, and they worried themselves with ethical treatment of articles, but they could probably get articles done and commit the sin of 'synthesis' without worrying about having to come to consensus. They were highly trained, skilled professionals interviewing other experts in whatever subject they needed to write about. And they got paid for doing that. And they managed to produce a pretty good encyclopedia until the Internet age and stuff like Wikipedia made them less important and less profitable.
 * Here at Wikipedia, a lot more people are just novices. They add a link to a news story, correct a comma, and try their best, but it takes a lot more effort generally to make an article here. Money can corrupt, but it can also focus effort. Some people get so bent out of shape here at the mere hint of moneymaking for Wiki work, and some people are just 'eh, whatever'. The golden mean is probably where we need to be, in an ethical place, but allowing for money to enter our temple and not fearing it. Having balanced competing interests usually helps prevent problems, and either Wikipedia can work toward developing that or keep developing silly policies that generally drive these things underground. If you do that, you hurt Wikipedia, and you end up making legitimate content contributors look like bandits. We need realistic debate; we need realistic thinkers. We have far too many people that drive the debate from what appears to be a purely emotional perspective, and while passion is important as a motivator, it needs to be passion for the right things. -- Avanu (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Final response
I have already taken the page off my watchlist, but not quick enough to miss your response.

Your comment began with, "Part of the problem is simply knowing it was under discussion. ScottyWong started his RfC at 20:06, 26 April 2012, and over a day later, Bwilkins posted a note on Jimbo's page two minutes after he started the MfD, the comment being "Somebody had to have the balls - I have nominated his userpage for deletion". This went unnoticed in all the discussion for a couple days until Carrite posted a comment of simply "WP:POINT", at which point *I* realized what Bwilkins had done and went to close it"

To me, you seem to be strongly implying that Bwilkins knew about the RfC before he started the MfD...but his treachery went unnoticed until *you* caught him in the act and shut it down.

I am completely done with this discussion now unless it comes up on the actually policy page (the one nobody supporting keeping the content is addressing) or if a new discussion (that hopefully won't be stifled yet again) appears on AN/I. Have a good morning/afternoon/night....whatever it is wherever the hell you are. --Onorem♠Dil 08:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I thank you for the kind words, but I should clear up that I'm actually not an admin, just a regular editor like anyone else. -- Avanu (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you should be. Admin or not, you deserve the "Admin" barnstar. I'll leave it at that. --Morning277 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mail
You've got it.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read it. Sounds good. -- Avanu (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ban statement
Let's just let it be until DC/PM/admins chime in, okay? Nobody Ent 20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

tpg
Please don't edit my posts. Nobody Ent 02:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I could have just reposted about 14 more copies as amendments were suggested, but that thread is getting longer and longer. Didn't think it would matter much since it seems to be wrapping up and I said I changed it too. Sorry about that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

snarky douche
I have a feeling this is going to become a severely overused phrase by myself. Probably not on wiki, but it made me chuckle :)  S Æ don talk  10:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Try to keep it off-wiki, buddy. You too, Avanu. We have a policy against calling each other stupid, derogatory names. Doc   talk  10:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, no offense was intended from me to you, Doc. I just thought the phrase funny.  S Æ don talk  10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Doc   talk  10:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)