User talk:Friday/archive12

Thecal Matter is not Slang
The phrase thecal matter has respectable origins. it is not to be confused with another similar sounding phrase I think you are fixated upon. Please read the definitions and follow the links I have added.

Regards, Iqbal

Iqu 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will provide evidence for refuting the theory that "Thecal Matter" is a "slang" neologism.

Regards,

Iqbal

Iqu 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqu (talk • contribs)

This page on thecal matter was recreated because i was trying follow your advice in supplying context for the subject. definitions are the first step in that direction.

Regards,

Iqbal Iqu 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqu (talk • contribs) --Iqu 19:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqu (talk • contribs)

I thought I had signed all Posts. --Iqu 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqu (talk • contribs) Iqu 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

GreenSpigot
She's requesting an unblock... whose sockpuppet is she? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Crazy as it sounds, I'm thinking of unblocking Light current. It depends a lot on how he responds to the parole conditions, and I'm not going to do it without going through AN/I first.  I'd welcome your thoughts (on- or off-wiki). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

HOPE
For what it's worth, while my own estimation of HOPE (band)'s actual notability was pretty similar to yours, the article did contain claims of notability — namely, video rotation on MuchMusic and a spot on the Vans Warped Tour, which is why I had tagged it for notability and references rather than directly deleting it. YMMV, I suppose, but while I was certainly planning to prod or AFD the article if it wasn't improved fairly soon, I didn't view the article as being immediately speediable. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. ok, I suppose it doesn't hurt to give it more time. I restored it for now.  Friday (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to vandalism reverts by Tollund man
Already got it, we're dealing with this one at ANI and the user's talk page. Thanks though! My regards, as always. Edit Centric (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

muumuu house
the page keeps getting deleted, help me so it doesn't get deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interned (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Account Creation mentoring?
Hi, Friday!! How are you? I am doing really well and really enjoying Wikipedia! I have been trying my hand lately at some of the more technical areas, such as vandal fighting, AfDs, speedy deletion and such. I was granted rollback which I have been using to quickly rollback vandalism. I am going to be taking a history class this summer and the professor has told me she requires group collaboration on an article. She let me know that she creates a very small number of accounts, hands out the password to those accounts. After looking at the guidelines and policies I found out that a group and role account isn't permitted. I found that experienced Wikipedia users do have the ability to create accounts if they have been accepted into this program. I applied last night but I was rejected because I am too new. :( The reason why I am approaching you is to see if you might help mentor me in order to gain competency in account creation. My short term goal is to help my classmates for the summer session and the long term goal is to help those who wish to edit wikipedia. So, I'd love to hear back from you when you have a chance. Thanks, Friday!!! Basket of Puppies  17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about account creation. Is there some reason people can't just create their accounts the usual way?  From what I can tell, creating an account on behalf of someone else looks like something that's only done for people who can't use the CAPTCHA due to being blind.  Friday (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Account creation is for people who's ips have been hardblocked and want accounts. It's a simple external site where you fill in a form and an admin or someone with account creator rights creates it for them (Account creator rights lets you create more than 6 per day). Basket of Puppets, my advice to you is to just do a little good editing, you don't need guidance, do whatever oyut hink is good, then re-request when you're more expperienced or so edits.-- Patton t / c 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, well I do have a lot of friends who are low-vision. I happen to be disabled myself and have a sister who is legally blind. Perhaps I can help them with creating accounts as they might find the CAPTCHA to be difficult to get through. Thanks, Friday! I'll do some more editing and perhaps by the time the summer comes around I'll have enough edits under my wings. Thanks! Basket of Puppies  18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Credititis
Thank you for responding; per your suggestion we removed all content that appeared to be "commercial"

I have many people ask me "What is credititis?" I am trying to have them get an idea on what it is and Wikipedia is a valid reference source. Credititis is NOT A COMPANY. Several federally registered trademark words are featured in Wikipedia presently. Please let me know what is on the credititis page that you don't like.

We have researched other trademarks and are trying to come into compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

We have supported Wikipedia with donations and believe in the concept.

Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPierson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Juvenile Deletionist
Thanks for the speedy action.

what do we do abt his mass-afd noms?

Lx 121 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct
It's interesting that you criticize me for acting like a child, however, your self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou, liberal, let's-all-hold-hands-and-sing-humbaya attitude is, blatantly, ignorant. I don't know what point you're trying to prove by calling me childish, but I don't get it. -Axmann8  ( Talk )  21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to tell you that it's time to either change your behavior or be shown the door. Friday (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Friday how about you show some decorum and good faith here sir. There is no reason to talk to a person they way you did in this [] edit on AX's talk page.  Lets be civil with each other here.  Cheers and happy editing. --Adam in MO Talk 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with that edit? Friday (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its tone isn't civil.--Adam in MO Talk 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He does need to either change his behavior or go away.  I can't think of a way to sugarcoat that and still say the same thing.  Friday (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then don't say it. He can read the ANI he knows what is around the corner.  He doesn't need you or anyone else to come to his talk page and talk to him like he is a child.  He is well aware of what happens when people misbehave on WP.--Adam in MO Talk 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And FYI WP isn't for reasonable people, or adults for that matter. Its for people who have a contribution to offer and can play by the rules.--Adam in MO Talk 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Playing by the rules" means behaving like a reasonable adult. I don't see anything wrong with telling disruptive editors to cut it out. But, I strongly suspect there's no way we can see eye-to-eye on this issue.   Friday (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (After 3 ecs) WP is for people who behave reasonably and like adults. There is nothing incivil about Friday's remarks. Plain speaking does not constitute incivility, spurious claims by those to whom the message is unwlecome notwithstanding. // BL \\ (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reduce indent for clarity)Well two people who disagree with me clearly puts me in the minority. Consensus has won out and I concede my position, with apologies to FRIDAY.--Adam in MO Talk 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 

Adam in MO Talk has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:WikiTea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * My goodness, how very civil! // BL \\ (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Adam, don't sweat it. I'm sure there are others who agree with you. I said something harsh.. I meant it, and I thought it needed to be said, but it shouldn't surprise me that some people object. If the number of objectors is roughly equivalent to the number of people who think it was ok, then I suppose I'm not too out of line. Friday (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is all moot now isn't it? I think consensus would have let him stay until he started on another tirade.  He then cemented the block by pulling some pointy stunts on his talk page.  Another editor who can't play nice bites it.--Adam in MO Talk 05:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it's best when these people go quickly instead of lingering for a long time.  When we have people like this, we shouldn't try to help them skirt the rules, we shouldn't try to reform them.. we should merely try to show them the door as painlessly as possible.  I've seen lots and lots of editors like that guy, and I've never once seen anything good come from trying to keep them around longer.  Friday (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Giannii
Friday,

I had a user contact me about a page they had created on wikipedia about me. How can we reinstate this page? Why was it deleted? I do not quite understand the A7 page.

Bonsaibeats (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) G

Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself or your work. I deleted the article because there was nothing to indicate why it belonged here- it wasn't really an encyclopedia article at all. If you're trying to use wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, you'll probably find it doesn't do what you want. Friday (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not using Wikipedia as a promotional tool just a user felt I should be on Wikipedia for history sake. I actually have no idea what was in the article so I cannot really defend it. Is there a way to see what was written? I am only contacting you as the user pinged me. Bonsaibeats (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)G


 * It was half resume and half nonsense.. nothing that looked like useful content. See Conflict of interest for good reasons why you and your friends should not write articles about yourselves.  Friday (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes complete sense, but I'd like to hear your opinion on what would have made it a relevant article? I personally do not really use Wikipedia much and just want a better understanding. I do find it comical though that you think I wrote an article about myself. My ego is about the size of a peanut. I just happen to do a great job as a community evangelist and people do kind things like this on occasion. Thank you for your time and the explanations. Bonsaibeats (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) G
 * There's a relevant page Why was my page deleted? but it's very general purpose. In this case, the page was deleted because even if the nonsense was removed there was still nothing there resembling an encyclopedia article.  Wikipedia articles require sources, and the article had none.  It wasn't clear what your "claim to fame" was- there was nothing to suggest notability.  Friday (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Whack
For having the gall to call out several other editors and me as "young editors who's [sic] immature behavior has been sufficient to be recognized by the community as problematic", especially without a shred of evidence to back up your argument. (Also, do you really think 22 is that young?) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

chicago talent agencies
my client feel that you deleted his page because he is not important.

google him:kytrell or kytrell mcdonald

please respond asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llcat (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

my deleted article
you deleted my page

I'm going to add reviews of the tour, and other links about the tour, news and updates, but I just wanted to get the downloads up for now....

why did you delete it??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Matthews_Band_Spring_2009_Tour_Downloads —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppaz (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

okay
but as I said, it's a work in progress.... did you ever think about giving people more than 1 minute? now I have to redo all that work it took me to make that page PLUS the new stuff I'm putting in if you had just been patient, you wouldn't have wasted my time Ppaz (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect use of admin tools
Removing that image and the protecting the page when there was a clear consensus to keep it is a textbook example of using one's admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Beyond the use of your admin tools it is not good for any user to edit against consensus. Please reverse these actions before this turns into a big issue. Chillum 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done what was right. Once.  If someone feels so strongly, let them undo it.  I won't war over it.  But I won't be undoing it, because I will not take an action that is not in the best interests of the project.   Friday (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not taken part in this issue, but it's not a question of "feeling strongly", it's abiding by consensus at the MfD, regardless of the fact that protecting a preferred version that you've reverted to is a really bad idea. Black Kite 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's about time somebody took a well-earned break from admin tools. If one cannot handle them appropriately, I can't see any other option.  Majorly  talk  17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you removed the image twice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Already been unprotected and restored by others. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps now we can just let this whole thing drop instead of letting it escalate? Chillum 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see that there's anything more I can reasonably do. I can wish that people would understand the goals and priorities of the project more than they do.. but that's just wishful thinking.  This was most certainly not an inappropriate use of admin tools, but wheel warring over it would be.   Friday (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The goals and priorities of Wikipedia have nothing to do with a picture on someone's userpage. The goal and priority is to write a free encyclopedia. You should try it sometime, instead of constantly launching yourself into drama and causing a fuss. What you think is "best" and "right" clearly differs from everyone else. The fact you cannot see how inappropriate your protection was just goes to show what a poor admin you are, and how clearly you need to stand down. I hope you will do it gracefully. This is not the only issue that is problematic with you.  Majorly  talk  17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was very inappropriate and you need to realize that or you will eventually lose your tools. Using your admin tools to bypass consensus and use your preferred version of a page in a content dispute is a big nono. You do not use your tools to force your point of view in a content dispute, ever. Chillum 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I'll treat it as such. If anyone really has a beef, take it to arbcom or where ever seems appropriate.  No amount of voting can override the core values of the project.  Friday (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no worries, this is a privately owned website. If the WmF thinks that page (or its ilk) meaningfully harms the project's core goals, they can have it swiftly deleted as they please through WP:OFFICE. If Jimbo is thinking about deleting it himself, at least he now knows he'll be doing so against consensus and may be asked to cite something which has sway beyond that threshold. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Friday. You did the right thing, for the right reasons. It may not happen tomorrow, but I expect in a few years all the shock and outrage you're getting will land on whomever overruled you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't wait. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What?! Someone else as crazy and abusive as I am?  Heh.. thanks.  It'd be cool if it turned out like that in a couple years.  We'll see.  Hopefully I'll still be around to see it, if they don't run me out of town on a rail.  Friday (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday, you are obviously having a problem with this image. Trust me, in the great scheme of things, it really is no big deal. If you want to email me about your problems with it please do, and I will try to explain why it is safe and harmless. Giano (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the image. If you mean me personally.  But my personal opinion about this image is not what matters here.  What matters here is how it looks to the public.  It's unprofessional.  It has no place on a user page here.  We don't host free webpages.  Friday (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Friday, I agree with everything you've said here. The image is inappropriate, unprofessional, damaging to the project in several ways.  For all of that, if the community don't believe that WebHamster should be forced to change the image, then force isn't appropriate.  We still haven't really engaged him in discussion.  Let's give him a few days to get his cool back, then try the soft approach.  It might work.  It should be given a chance.  Cheers, Ben Aveling 08:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * People have tried talking to him. You saw how it went, right?  He's not reasonable.  You don't keep trying to reason with people who lack that capacity- it's a waste of time.   Also I have to disagree that the community's vote matters.  People can't change the fundamental nature of the project with a vote.  Nothing resembling a vote should have been tried, here.
 * All that said, certainly what I tried didn't work either. So something different than that was the right solution, if such a right solution exists.  Giano's comment made me wonder if I was starting to see the real problem, here.  Do people really believe this is about me trying to enforce my personal opinion?  That would certainly explain why they objected.  But how could anyone think this?  Every Wikipedia editor already knows that they must set aside their personal opinions in the work they do here, right?  Everyone's already got lots of practice doing this, so I assume any competent editor is already good at that.  I was just enforcing the standards that have existed all along.  My personal standards have nothing to do with this, and I had hoped that this would be obvious.  But, maybe it wasn't. Friday (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mike09
You might want to check out this user's talk page. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, is there a way you could reword this edit in a way that is directed more towards that specific editor and less towards an entire group of people, many of which can contribute to this encyclopedia without a problem. Thanks,  Them From  Space  04:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right- what I was thinking but failed to say was that eccentricity in itself is an unhelpful attribute for a contributor. But I have no doubt there are many useful contributors who could be considered eccentric.  I amended the comment.  Friday (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion comments
Hi Friday, you've been deleting pages I've been tagging speedy for a fair while, but I'm becoming a little concerned about your entries in the 'reason for deletion' field -
 * You almost never cite the CSD you're deleting under, as strongly recommended by WP:DPR.
 * You're often putting "someone's made-up word", "some made-up thing", and "WP:NFT" as a reason, which is not in itself grounds for speedy deletion as per CSD.
 * You're often putting "unsourced" as a reason, which is also not in itself grounds for speedy deletion, as long as there is an assertion of notability, as per CSD.
 * You're often putting "nonsense" as a reason, when it is not - patent nonsense has a very specific meaning, and deleting articles as this incorrectly is very bitey.
 * You're often putting "some cool kid[...]" as a reason, such as "some kid who wants to be in a band", which although may be funny, is bitey and completely uninformative.

You might want to have a read through WP:WIHSD, WP:FIELD, and WP:10CSD.

I note from your talk page that this is not the first time you've had this raised to you. Please don't take this to be offensive, I'm just hoping to offer some constructive criticism. Thanks, ShakingSpirit talk  20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) I may have jumped the gun saying this has been raised before; I'm not going to go digging through your archives, but I did notice User:Jamiejojesus's comment of "who the hell do you you think you are? nonsense?" while scrolling down here. Apologies if I was mistaken. ShakingSpirit talk 21:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I always thought plain-English explanations were more informative than something like "G12".  Do you disagree with any of the deletions, or just the log comments?  I don't see where people have brought this up before- where did you see that?  I certainly don't recall it as any kind of ongoing problem, but I could be wrong.  When you see me write "some cool kid" it's because the article said "Joey is a cool kid!".  A while back, the deletion log would  default to things like "Content was 'Billy is cool'" but it doesn't do that anymore.  So, sometimes I paraphrase the content so anyone looking at the log can see why I deleted it.  Friday (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - I just raised a question at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process since it seems relevant there. I don't think this "strongly recommended" is a good practice.  Friday (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Without knowing what the content of some of the articles were, I can't say if I disagree with the deletions themselves or just your reasoning behind them - I'm assuming good faith that they were valid deletions but perhaps with bad logic. I agree that plain english is more informative than just a CSD reference, but wouldn't you agree that something such as "G4: Recreation of deleted material" is more informative to both the page author at the time, and when looking back through the logs in a years time, than "same as before"?
 * Hi Friday, Shaking asked me to take a look at his comments after I left him a note indicating that he mis-spoke when representing A7. I have to agree with ShakingSpirit on the use of standardized language.  While it may make more sense to you, it doesn't really help---and might actually hinder.  For example, suppose that Shaking nominated an article A3, but wasn't sure of his rationale.  You delete it with "some cool kid," by using "plain english" Shaking can't gain insight from your deletion.  Now, if you deleted it A3, he would know "Yeah, I did it right" but if you deleted it A7, it might help him rationalize why A7 was better than A3.  It also teaches bad precident.  If you can delete an article with "some cool kid" why can't Shaking nominate as "some cool kid?"  And if he can nominate articles for deletion per "some cool kid" then why not bob? Jill? Sue? Why have guidelines at all?  By explicitly stating the guideline, it also forces you (and the nominator) to identify what criteria it fits.  "Does the article really fit G3?"  If you do CSD's then you should feel comfortable speaking the jargon, and by speaking the jargon, you ensure that others understand what you are saying.  "Some cool kid" doesn't tell me if you deleted it A7 or if that was the total contents of the page?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)EDIT: Just noticed the thread at the CSD talk, will continue there.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough. I'll try to be more informative.  Some of them I think were good log entries, some of them probably could be better.  I suppose I could use a combination of the pull-down choices and additional plain-English explanation.  I do that sometimes, but I'll try to get in the habit of doing it more, for things where there is an applicable pull-down choice.  Friday (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it.. it would be better IMO for people to use plain English in the deletion nominations also. The CSDs are a beginner's tool- once people get well experienced at actually doing new page patrol, they don't need them.  Anyone trying to apply them very rigidly will discover the holes in them.  But, this may be getting overly-philosophical and perhaps off-topic.  Pragmatically, I can easily use the pull-down and a typed-in reason, in most cases.  Friday (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah. Why am I replying in two places at once?  Sorry, I'll try to consolidate.  Further responses on the more relevant talk page. Friday (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will respond at the centralized discussion on the deletion talk page.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback request
I'd like rollback permission. I just learned the feature exists -- it would have been helpful to me a few times in the past.

Thanks. —Christian Campbell 04:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,

note on my comment
Thanks for the well thought out note. And I do appreciate the problem as you see it. I just don't see the user in question as being or becoming a problem. I know of one brilliant young user who has had problems, but they showed up before and during RFA's. With repeats due to his popularity. After the last explosion, I doubt he would garner any serious support. Kids, on average, are kids. I can appreciate the innate sense of mistrust. I balance that against the one's who have proven time and again that they are mature, responsible, at times brilliant users. If the user in question shows indications of being erratic, having unsound judgment, or being otherwise unready, I would oppose. I just can't see applying litmus tests to gauge users. Who knows, your position may gain sufficient traction to derail the RFA in question. That's what I love about consensus. Always trust consensus. Collectively we are wise. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hondasaregood
The userpage was an advert for Hondas, so I felt that the tag was a good one. Nobody disagreed at the time. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ping
You've an e-mail. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I was just very p*ssed off. I don't like Readro's use of words either. I'm obviously not happy so saying I'm "a drama queen" doesn't help. Thank you for concerning me about it. I'm having a very stressful time at work and this place is the only time I get to breath, so having people throw insults in my face and then try and get others to do it, you are able to understand why I'm a bit of a drama queen. Chubb enna  itor  12:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi. Just curious, how was my RfA controversial? It passed at 154/3/2, and as far as I know I've preformed reasonably since my promotion. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know the answer to that too and also what the purpose of a lot of these are.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That list is semi-organized, but probably only in a way I notice. I found it interesting mainly because it's a repeat RFA.. wasn't trying to imply that it was controversial.   The rest of those pages, well, few of them are still active.  Mostly it's old notes from things I once thought were important.  Friday (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many, many admins pass on their second or even third request. I don't view that as an issue at all, but alright. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing my comment on the talk page of Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation was a good start. Now see if you can do the same for Peter Laird and Venus. Ian Fairchild (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Majorly
That doesn't really sound like you. Are you OK? --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh. I need to go offwiki and won't be back till Monday. So apologies if you reply and receive a stony silence for a few days. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's me, and yeah, I'm OK.. I don't quite get it. Friday (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Recovery of a deleted article
Hey there! I recently created an article called "Ishan shah" (Foolish me, my first article and I mess up on capitalization), and it was quickly nominated for speedy deletion. It happened so quickly after I had created the article that I assumed that it must be some automated process because it didn't have enough words or some such thing. I got rid of the tag, which all but guaranteed the article's quick deletion. I later checked my new messages, and saw the reasoning behind the deletion. The message also directed me to a list of admins that could provide a copy of the deleted article, and I was hoping that you could do that for me. I promise that I won't make the same mistake twice, and also wait until the person who I'm writing the article on is more relevant. Thanks in advance, Friday. Darxbloop (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Message for Friday
Ok, I'm going to make it clear from the outset that I'm sure you are a lovely person, Friday, and my comments here should not be misinterpreted as "uncivil" or "personal attacks". I'm sure you won't, but others might, so I'm making this clear because what I'm about to say may seem to be.

It is quite clear I have had problems with your behaviour for some time now. While we agree on the occasional topic, far too often I find the way you express yourself and conduct yourself over this project to be highly unbecoming of an admin. This goes into quite a bit of detail, but I'll put it quite simply: you are the one who is the drama queen around here, not I. Let us compare our edits, shall we? My past 500 article edits - majority are improvements to articles, writing GAs, DYKs etc. They go back a month and a half. Your article edits - mostly reverts, but sparse - these go back to June 2007. Yes, 2007.

OK, so it's established you aren't really interested in writing articles. Fair does, many users are not. But do bear in mind, it is why we are here. I do write articles, which is our aim on this project.

Let's move on. Your edits, in general, are to the reference desks, admin noticeboards, deletion discussions, talk pages, and RFA. The sort of areas the evil "chat room" editors hang out. I had a glance through your most recent RFA votes - you never support anyone, and all your opposes are based on an ill-thought out, baseless agenda that the users are "kids" and hang out in a "chat room". In my own RFA, for example, you criticised 95 people for supporting me, claiming they were not evaluating me properly. Excuse me? It is you who doesn't evalauate candidates properly, not them: example [this. Your opposes, while with good intentions, come across as angry and bitter against something. Was there something in your Wikipedia history that makes you not trust most people. The thing is, I don't understand why you care so much for wiki-politics. You are barely interested in the encyclopedia, and you spend the majority of your time drama-mongering on admin noticeboards, whining about immature editors. Do you think that is really an appropriate way to spend your time? Do you think it is really an appropriate way for an admin to behave?

There is also the fairly recent case where you abused your admin tools to give yourself the upper hand in a dispute. You're always complaining about so-called bad admins, that you can never give any substance to your claims. Surely, when you're preaching about admins being easily removed, this should be the case with you? Would you stand down? You clearly and abusively used your admin tools to protect a userpage to your own preferred version. Highly inappropriate behaviour, and the sort of immature response to a situation that you are always complaining about.

Additionally, I'm concerned with your use of userspace. For example, this subpage seems to just be a shit list, providing no purpose other than to shit-stir. What possible benefit does listing "repeated" RFAs have to anything? There was also this for which you were heavily criticised for. A list of so-called immature and problematic editors. Such a creation can only be described as drama-stirring, since a) Many users have long left the site b) Most on the list are adults c) It helps nothing in the improvement of the encyclopedia. I can only speak for myself, but I was offended to be on that list - I slave away day after day after day, improving articles to the best of my ability, and all this is belittled by an admin who thinks he knows better than everyone else, and isn't interested at all in doing what we're here for.

Tell me Friday, what is your purpose here? Is it to write an encyclopedia, or is it to act like a drama queen, and be a pain in the arse wherever you stick your nose in? Because, quite evidently, it's the second one. Your contributions to RFAs are never short of being totally unhelpful - what possible benefit is it to bring forward your agenda to oppose people, with the baseless accusation that they are a "kid" and use a "chat room" (there are editors you've opposed with this rationale who are married with their own children, and run a successful business in real life). You just constantly get the wrong end of the stick, and assume the worst in everyone.

My buddies and I did have a good laugh in our evil chat room when we saw your vote - since of course, you must have been referring to yourself when you said "goes looking for trouble" - because surely, that fits you perfectly?

Listen Friday - I respect your opinion on things, but as of late (well, ever since we came across each other) I have found that you are constantly aggressive, belittling of other editors, abusive and yes, a drama queen.

I find it very hypocritical that you spend all your time opposing people on RFA for behaviour that you repeatedly show yourself. Now, the one thing you and I agree on - an easy method to desysop abusive admins - would you be willing to follow this through, if I get further opinions on this? Because frankly, I'm sick of your antics around here. It is you who needs to grow up and stop acting like a kid. That is why I ask you to stand down from your admin position - I have long felt you are unsuited to the role. If you refuse, I'll have to take it further, but it'll only show hypocricy on your part.

Thanks for listening, and I hope you're not too offended (you shouldn't be, because criticism is allowed).  Majorly  talk  19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there's lots here.. so forgive me if my response is a bit disorganized. The biggest complaint of substance I see here is regarding that WebHamster page, and I already took some lumps for that.  I'm ok with it.  I still stand by what I did there- I'm not here to do what's popular.  I'm here to do what's right.  I don't care how many misguided people show up and vote.  There was a time when admins were expected to apply good judgement and not simply count votes.  Call me old-fashioned, but that's still the way I do things.  And yes, of course I'm not much of a writer.  I've never claimed to be.  I haven't counted but I strongly suspect I've done way more deletions than article edits.  I just clean up junk, because I don't have the skills to do real writing.  I'm not interested in comparing numbers with anyone.  Sometimes I go weeks without using Wikipedia at all.  Of course, when I do edit, I think I'm doing useful things, same as most anyone.   But I could be wrong.  If there's a specific problem, tell me what is it.  As for resigning the bit, well, I don't trust your judgement at all.  So, show me some better evidence that I've been doing things wrong.  I don't think I'm a drama queen, but I suppose nobody ever thinks that about themselves.  If I'm whining about something, it's only so far as I think is useful in solving the problem at hand.  Take it to RFC if you like.. don't worry about certifiers or anything.  If there's a real problem, I need to know what it is, because right now I don't see it.  Friday (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

More often or not I find my self agreeing with Friday. I see no reason for him to step down. Majorly, you write "That is why I ask you to stand down from your admin position - I have long felt you are unsuited to the role. If you refuse, I'll have to take it further". These types of power play are the worst forms of time sink on wikipedia. People need to stop using this place for their own entertainment. This is not a reality show and real hours are wasted with this stuff. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Power play" "Time sink"? If an admin is abusive in their position, as I believe Friday has been, do you expect me to just sit back and watch it happen? No, I'm going to do something about it. You say "People need to stop using this place for their own entertainment" - perhaps you could ask Friday to stop using this place as his own personal playground, where he is teacher and everyone else is a kid in a chat room? It's an encyclopedia, and he needs to start treating it like one. He's not a kindergarden cop.  Majorly  talk  21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He calls everyone a kid in a chat room? David D. (Talk) 21:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he's mad because when I see an RFA of someone I consider immature, I tend to say things like "Oppose- he acts like a kid". I don't see this as a problem, but some people do.  Friday (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much anyone he disagrees with, or finds their behaviour inappropriate - yes. Examples: this, this. There's plenty more, but they can wait for the RFC. He frequently labels adults under the sweeping blanket statement, with no evidence whatsoever. It is completely in violation of WP:NOT a battleground as well.
 * PS I'm not mad. I think you're an abusive administrator, and you need to start practising what you preach. You're not here to write an encyclopedia, clearly. You're here to engage in drama, and you clearly thrive off it.  Majorly  talk  21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what you're calling battleground-ing and drama-stirring is what I call giving my opinion. I think I tend to give my opinion and then move on, rather than dwell on disagreements, but of course people are often poor judges of their own behavior.  That's what I try to do, anyway. Friday (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What possible benefit to the building of the encyclopedia did the list of "immature" editors on the talk page of the ageism page have? As I noted on the page, its only purpose is to cause drama and further the battleground antics. Your belittling and ridiculing those editors, who slave(d) away on Wikipedia building articles was astoundingly poor judgement.  Majorly  talk  22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [ec] If in his opinion an adult is immature then i see no reason why he should not give such a rationale in an RfA. Immaturity has little to do with age and is all about how you act. I have not checked to see if he is correct in the two cases you present but I have come across many here who behave immaturely. I don't know if they are kids but they exist. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine to say, "He is immature", but to say "He acts like a kid in a chatroom who is being supported by his buddies" to anybody—adult or otherwise—is offensive, not to mention a violation of AGF. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this help? User:Friday/Criticism.  Friday (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is making up stuff about someone criticism?  Majorly  talk  22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec]Some people prefer to call a spade a spade rather than using nicer words. Are those descriptions actually inaccurate? David D. (Talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can just as effectively call a spade a spade in a civil and professional manner, why go out of your way to say it offensively? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly are. For one thing, just because you use IRC doesn't make you all one big cabal. Friday simply opposes anyone who uses IRC, without any kind of reason that suggests the candidate would abuse admin rights. He often attacks the supporters, referring to them as "buddies" of the candidate. Massive assumptions of bad faith.  Majorly  talk  22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So if he wrote "Too immature and mass support from his friends" it would be OK? Or possibly "Too immature and uses wikipedia for social networking"? David D. (Talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mass support from his friends" is not an acceptable reason to oppose; each candidate should be judged on their own individual merit. "Uses Wikipedia for social networking", however, is a perfectly valid concern. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are we to tell Friday what is acceptable? You don't trust the bureaucrats to weight the opinions fairly? David D. (Talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday should know better than to make opposes that don't evaluate the candidate. He's an admin, and should be setting an example. Ironically, the example that he demands from those who he opposes. Besides David, do you think a baseless opinion (such as "goes looking for trouble") a fair one? Should we ignore it, or deal with it? I think the latter. We should not tolerate such things on RFA, which is brutal enough as it is.  Majorly  talk  22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore it. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that just covers up the issue. Friday should not be making baseless comments on RFA, end of story. He needs to stop, and back his comments up with evidence. Until he does, it's abusing the process. I know Friday is a fan of criticism, so I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige by actually giving the candidate some constructive criticism, rather than an empty "Sounds like a kid".  Majorly  talk  22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But supports aren't always from friends. I had people I consider friends oppose my RFA. It's the massive sweeping assumptions that are bad here. How does Friday know who is a friend and who is not? He's just guessing, and guessing wrongly. And I can't think of many people who use the site other than its purpose - encyclopedia - more than Friday does. So to have him criticising editors for daring to socialise a bit is hypocritical.
 * Besides, the problems are not just RFA. There are his user subpages, for example. And his abuse of admin tools to win a dispute.  Majorly  talk  22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When hoards of people rush out to participate, much more than usual, its a fairly good bet that friends are coming to support. I see no reason why Friday cannot mention this if he sees it that way. Leave it to the bureaucrats. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly good bet the candidate is a good one, actually. But since Friday always assumes the worst, he'll oppose it with a baseless accusation, and probably attack the supporters accusing them of being "chat room buddies". I don't understand the negativity. Why are you so negative Friday? Apart from Everyking recently, I don't recall you ever supporting anyone. Is it that the candidates are that awful, or do you just go out of your way to oppose people who you think might be immature or who use IRC? Because that's what I've seen.  Majorly  talk  22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a useful way forward, here. You say my accusations are baseless... yet, when I try to collect data for examination, you complain about that, too. How about this: can we leave all philosophical disputes aside, and you only complain to me when there's something concrete that you disagree with? Friday (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You make the accusations, then collect data afterwards? What's the purpose there? You're supposed to evaluate as you go, not after. Otherwise, it's pointless. I've had enough of talking on here. There are two other editors working on the RFC with me, who are fed up with your behaviour too, so we'll see you when we see you. Otherwise, please try to give more reasoned comments when you oppose people. The oppose on my RFA "goes looking for trouble" is totally false, and very hurtful. Looking at your editing pattern though, it fits you perfectly. Just my opinion though.  Majorly  talk  22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Maybe it's pointless, but I was already partway through typing this when you replied, so here goes.)

Maybe this will help if you can see where I'm coming from here. Here's the problem I'm trying to solve: Wikipedia has gotten no better at picking admins in the years I've been observing. Most other processes have improved. Why is RFA so fucked up, and what can be done to fix it? I observe lots of cronyism in RFA- I'm not just making things up. I also know there are chat rooms where people makes friends, and enemies. Wikipedia works better if people don't go around making friends or enemies. I also know the project is disproportionately populated by young people, with all the drama and foolishness that goes along with teenagers. These are not imaginary problems- they're things I actually see going on, very frequently. When I see a problem, I usually try to solve it. Anyway, on RFAs I most often participate when I have an actual opinion. If I don't have much of one, you probably won't see me commenting there. Most often when I have a strong opinion, it's because I've seen the candidate being foolish. Sometimes, it's because I've seen the candidate being conspicuously sensible. Also, if you're trying to get me to change, you might try arguing differently. I try to act like a disinterested judge in matters like RFA. Emotional appeals won't help your case with me. People making decisions based on emotion rather than reason is one of the big problems Wikipedia has. I won't (purposely) be a part of it. Friday (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Friday/bcrat
User:Friday/bcrat, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Friday/bcrat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Friday/bcrat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any troubles caused
Dear Friday, I did not mean for there to be any trouble about the deleted article Easiteach. Please let me assure you there is the Floptchy and I are not the same person, and are not related in any way, through business or friendship. If there is any confusion please let me know and i will try and sort it out. Thanks, Magnarot (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Goldblum
I've already brought it up at page protection, but you might want to up the protection to full; semi-protect is pointless if autoconfirmed accounts are changing it too. Half Shadow  01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypocricy
"I have niggling concerns that this editor is too into Wiki-politics, which has generally proven quite harmful" - a fairly hypocritical statement, would you not agree, considering your own activity on Wikipedia is almost entirely wallowing in politics and drama? Much like "Goes looking for trouble" on my own RFA, a statement that fits you perfectly.  Majorly  talk  16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * I wasn't really referring to a metapedian stance, which I don't see anything wrong with. By "politics" I really meant personal relationships between editors, which are pretty much always harmful.  A focus on editors isn't harmful at all- Wikipedia's future success depends more on figuring out how to manage the process of editing than anything else.  As for your own RFA, I was far from the only person with that same opinion.  But we've already hashed over that, so I doubt anything useful would come of further discussion there.  Friday (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance we could set up a cage match for the two of you???--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Figure out a way to make money from it, and I'm there. Friday (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is useless trying to knock some actual sense into you, since you are so incredibly stubborn and clearly don't ever see anything wrong in what you do. Please do continue making your ridiculous comments (on RFA, AN/I wherever), it's simply more juice for the RFC.  Majorly  talk  17:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An RFC, really? They almost never make money.  Seriously tho, any way I could convince you that differing opinions are allowed?  I know I have some opinions, and I know some of them are unpopular.  I'm ok with not being the most popular kid on the block.  When I think it's appropriate or useful, I give my opinions in the relevant places.  Call me thick, but I don't see the problem.  Friday (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When your opinions are hypocritical, I find that to be an issue. When you march round the project with a sour attitude and a grumpy demeanour, I find that to be an issue. When you have a constantly negative attitude about most things, I find that an issue. When you order others about for doing or not doing things you are guilty of yourself, I find this an issue. When you are supposed to have trust in the community, but don't, yet you still hang on to your precious admin bit for dear life, I find that to be an issue. Trust me, you will not pass RFA again. Not because you aren't popular, but because you are a poor example. You probably think all this is perfectly fine, but I don't. There are far too many people with an incredibly negative attitude about everyone and everything on this project, and you just happen to be the most prominent one. Since you don't appear to do little else other than involving yourself in drama, and inflicting your negative attitude on others, this is very much a problem. The fact you don't see it though doesn't surprise me in the least. You are constantly telling people they are the kind of editor this site could do without - tell me, what do you bring to Wikipedia? What is your purpose here? What makes you any better than the people you take great pleasure in telling to basically piss off? And what makes you any better as an admin than all those people you have opposed with the flimsiest, weakest of reasons?  Majorly  talk  17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are some fundamental disagreements we have.. and I'm not optimistic that we'll ever see eye-to-eye on some issues. I certainly don't think I have a negative attitude about everything- that wouldn't make any kind of sense at all. RFA seems to be a topic of recurring disagree with us. I try not to live in some rose-colored fantasy world where every person is competent and wise. In actual reality, some candidates are good, and some are bad. When I see one that looks good to me, I'll support and say why. When I see one that looks bad to me, I'll oppose and say why. What you describe as constant negativity is what I call actually evaluating the candidates. I also don't see how you came to believe some of the things you're saying. Problem editors are of course a frequently recurring problem. It's definitely not pleasant dealing with them- it's about as much fun as mowing the lawn or taking out the trash. But, it is something that needs done. Anyway, I may not be grasping where you're coming from - I see your comments as being full of emotionally loaded language, but short on substance. Maybe I can understand you better if you leave the emotional stuff out? Friday (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you've failed to address the problems I have brought here. This is not just a disagreement, nor is it just RFA. This should be as clear as day to any person. This is problems with you. Not with your opinion. Not with your beliefs. With the way you act. Since you're so determined to ignore the actual issues I have raised here, I'm going to leave you and once again, hope you understand that sometimes the way you act is problematic. I doubt you will, but I do hope.  Majorly  talk  19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm wondering if it's mostly just you that sees a problem here. You recently tried deleting User:Friday/bcrat for example- a page which you saw as a real problem.  Judging from the MFD, most other people didn't see it as a problem.  What you're saying here reminds me a lot of what you said there.  Near as I can tell, your complaint is that I'm ridiculous and negative?  Can you explain it any more specifically than that?  Maybe I'm really thick today, but so far you just sound to me like you simply object to any and all criticism.  I'm a firm believer that criticism is allowed.  I'm pretty sure you've seen User:Friday/Criticism, right?  I'm not sure how to explain my position any better than that.  Friday (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I see a problem as well. "Sounds like he's probably a kid", for example, is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. Also, responding to good-faith criticism with the edit summary "meh" is not very becoming of a sysop. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Thinking that someone is a kid has no bearing on whether or not I think they're trying to do the right thing. It doesn't sound like you know what the words "assume good faith" mean. Friday (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Since we're all jumping in here, I'll have a go. No, Julian, it's not. AGF means one must assume all other parties are doing everything with the sincere belief that what they are doing will benefit the encyclopedia. At no point did Friday cast aspersions on the intentions of the editor, which would have been an assumption of bad faith. ÷seresin 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While Julian's terminology may not be spot on, the act itself is not a very pleasant one - especially if the person is an adult. Calling an adult "childish" is intended to be an insult. Saying "sounds like a kid" isn't remotely helpful.  Majorly  talk  20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but it's just my interpretation of that particular guideline. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, "assume good faith" means "don't make baseless accusations" in my eyes. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not just me. I'm just the one with the balls to say it to you. There are plenty of people fed up with your antics. I voted to delete the drama stirring page you created because it doesn't help build the encyclopedia, and simply attacked people for their opinion - you labelled them as "lunacy". That isn't criticism, that's downright insulting. How about I make a little subpage, suggesting that the RFA you passed in 2005 was a complete mistake? Because it really was.
 * It is clear my complaint here is that your attitude is not one that works in a collaborative environment. Making little lists of editors, with a load of angry and sour remarks about their RFAs, making little digs at people because they don't meet your arbitrary standards and more, simply does not work in a collaborative environment. People on the MFD were clearly confused, and thought you were actually going to use the page for something. To me, it seems it's just your shitlist. And who cares how many people did not think before making a vote? There were some comments which were spot on, including this one (which sums up all your edits rather well): "This reads like the diary of a sour person with endless axes to grind. The sentiments expressed here are an embarrassment". Very, very true there. Why not smile a little and enjoy yourself while you're here? Or are you a genuinely miserable person in real life too? I really hope not.  Majorly  talk  20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Friday, I won't lie to you, while I don't necessarily approve of Majorly's methods and coming to your talk page in the way he does, at his core, I tend to agree with his criticisms. You tend to be one of the people I expect to see drawn to dramafests and fueling the flames more often than putting them out.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weird. I try to solve problems efficiently.  If this comes across as dramatic, I'm doing it wrong.  Friday (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How, precisely, does saying "Sounds like a kid in a chat room" solve problems? Not only are you knowingly going to irritate people by doing that, it's just something that does not need saying. Calling somebody "childish" or "acting like a kid" is always intended to be insulting. Think of better ways to express your opinion.  Majorly  talk  20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a description of a certain specific type of undesirable behavior. When we see problem editors here, they only come in a few flavors. A very common type of problem editor are those people who, broadly speaking, tend to act like kids.  It's OK to describe them that way.  More specifically, they're prone to rash judgement and emotional reactions.  I know you have a bee in your bonnet over this ageism issue.  We've already talked about it at length and come no closer to agreement, right?  I don't really know what else to tell you.  Friday (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to think of a specific case later today, but when I think about your role in disputes, my impression has been that you've added more fuel to the fire than not.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Requests for comment/Friday.  Majorly  talk  21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Friday
you deleted my page Coach Stop because of unambiguous advertisement....i was just putting up a local store....wouldn't pages like this fall under the same category.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_hut ???

Chewie language
Well sorry, this was not a nonsense article. It was not written well, but I needed a start. Please stop deleting my contributions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamaennchen (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User: hckiv
hmmm what to say? im told im trying to disrupt thing by the "editors" this is a factual article, there is nothing wrong with it. and sockpuppets, i have other accounts but not to evade anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hckiv (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. that is original research. these are facts by mr. stephen hugueley himslef. no position is being advanced. he wants this on here. and please remove the ban from user:deathrow researcher, that account has no relation to me at all, my other account is halofrkxl, thats what u should ban if u want to ban anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hckiv (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 31 hours for continually disrupting Wikipedia. If you disagree with my actions or think it is punitive rather than preventative, please open a dialog. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. Thanks for the note.  Friday (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adverrtising
Hi, I was merely trying to set up a history and profile page e.g link microsoft, link honeywell , [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. link Apple]

I simply pasted from the about text as a starter.

We just as the major PLC's are and have been making a valid contribution to society both paid and voluntary and simply wish to create a profile.

I wouldn't want some one to read about us through wikipedia and receive false info.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you removed the page as i thoughtlessly hit save page.

IF i make it un public until it is finished with our achievements rather than what was arguably part of a sales pitch (inadvertent) that you will grace the entry with more respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parablemux (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Effect
I understand your position on the article, I added some explanation on the talk page. I really think we should have this article as it is becoming a common statement in the news about...well the effect his death had. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. :) Cliffsteinman (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About Primeval Existence
I'm not trying to promote neither myself nor my work; I have got no financial or fame-like purposes with my musical project; Neofolk isn't about that. Wikipedia helped me to know more about neofolk when I wanted, and all that I want is to do the same for other people who want to know it, expanding the neofolk-related articles here; for this, I did what I thought that was appropriate: nobody better than me to write about Primeval Existence.

This article was not for Primeval Existence promotion, it was for Neofolk rising in Wikipedia.

--George Ayres (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)George Ayres

Did you actually see my article? There was nothing there promoting Primeval Existence, or any group in particular; it was regular information! What I meant by "doing it for Neofolk in Wikipedia" is something that was not apparent in the article; this is my personal belief, and I tried not to let it explicit in the article. And as far as I concern, this is a place for information, and that's what I did there: I wrote information about a musical project. As you said, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and I don't see Wikipedia as a place for Primeval Existence's promotion, nor will people see like this. --George Ayres (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC) George Ayres

About the article.
Did you actually see my article? There was nothing there promoting Primeval Existence, or any group in particular; it was regular information! What I meant by "doing it for Neofolk in Wikipedia" is something that was not apparent in the article; this is my personal belief, and I tried not to let it explicit in the article. And as far as I concern, this is a place for information, and that's what I did there: I wrote information about a musical project. As you said, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, and I don't see Wikipedia as a place for Primeval Existence's promotion, nor will people see like this.--George Ayres (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC) George Ayres

Public Apology
Hi Friday,

Now that the RfC on you appears to be undergoing a slow meangering death, I wanted to come here an make a public apology. Like I mentioned in my statement, when I went to the RfC, I fully expected to endorse the RfC against you. I expected to see more cases where you were involved with ANI discussions adding fuel to the fire. I expected to see more questionable uses of the admin tools. I expected more because I had the impression that you were every bit the drama laden queen that the Majorly tried to paint you as.

When I read the RfC and didn't see a stronger case, that forced me to look at your edits closer, and like I said, what I saw did not match my impression. You are no more involved in the ANI drama than I am and while I think more tact in certain areas would be helpful (as mentioned in my statement) I was surprised at how wrong my impression of you was. For that I wanted to apologize to you. We may not always agree (or disagree) but it is those differences that make the community stronger. Anyway, even though I don't believe I ever said anything negative to (or about you) I did want to apologize for misjudging you the way I had.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. There's no need to apologize for an honestly held opinion.  Opinions are allowed, and I for one appreciate it when people make their opinions known in such a forthright manner.  But, I appreciate the note, and I'm glad I don't seem so dramatic to an impartial observer.  I certainly don't try to add fuel to fires, but of course people can do that sort of thing accidentally.  I know I'm not the most diplomatic person, but I certainly hope I'm nowhere near as bad as the RFC was trying to make out.  I think it's OK for there to be different types of people here.  Some may be extremely diplomatic, and others may be more blunt- and such a mixture is a good thing in my opinion.   Friday (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How do I get away from SheffieldSteel without leaving i Wikipedia?
I was just looking over SheffieldSteel's talk page and discovered your post. I will try not to start accusing SheffieldSteel of anything yet, but I would certainly appreciate if some of the other 1,600 administrators could deal with any infractions that I have commited or will commit in the future.

This, because I do not believe SheffieldSteel can behave unbiased towards me. This Rfc (from December 2008) deals solely with SheffieldSteel's decision to edit my user page against my wishes. I did not think he was unbiased towards me even before the Rfc, and certainly not after. I do not want to leave Wikipedia as I did before because of his constant picking on me.

I have now asked him to stay away and informed the participants of the current Requests for comment/Frei Hans too. Could you perhaps provice some guidance as to how I can get on with my editing without constantly living with the fear of being bullied by SheffieldSteel? --Law Lord (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he's a bit too thin skinned.. but I don't see him doing anything to prevent you from getting on with your editing. If he makes a frivolous complaint, how about just ignoring it?  Friday (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will try that. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened in Dec 2008 wasn't as he says. As you can see from the diff he provided, I didn't decide to edit his user page; I asked him to remove or refactor a post I felt was a personal attack. At first he agreed to do so, on condition that I named the person I thought was being attacked. I accepted his offer, naming myself. His response was not to do as he said he would, but to start an ANI thread claiming admin abuse and an RFC as to whether he could keep the statement on his page. Needless to say, the drama blossomed (while I was away from Wikipedia). When I got back, I defused the situation (see the "motion to close" section of the RfC he linked to).
 * So, yeah, maybe I have a grudge against Law lord and maybe he has one against me. Maybe I'm following him around, and maybe he's following me. Perhaps, Friday, you could ask Law Lord (in an unbiased way and without picking on him) why he decided to comment on my comment at Requests_for_comment/Frei_Hans. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

please visit
friday please can you visit my friends profile -campon hoyle as he has put an appeal agaisnt the blocking of our profiles as a result of vandalism by an idiot who, i belive has previously edited silly comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewhoyle (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Don't think we've met, but I have a question. Regarding the comment you made here, do you think the user is referring to this user-talk? 'ceran 'thor 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh.. well, I'd guess it's probably the same guy. He'll either stop trolling, or he'll be blocked again.  Friday (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * SoV's block summary is commendable, "not being here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, as shown in the personal attacks in your first two edits", indeed. Alright, thank you! ceran thor 00:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

hey
Can you remove my User page's history, please? I feel just a blank screen without history is cooler. Thanks! Taraborn (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, mate! --Taraborn (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Each and every time I am subjected to personal attacks I will leave a warning, 'helpful</I>' or not. There are a select group of editors here who feel that they are above all the rules ... I will not kowtow to them in any fashion. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not useful to the project for you to perpetuate some petty personal dispute. Eventually, intentionally unhelpful behavior is likely to come back and bite you, so you may want to re-evaluate your approach.  Friday (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you consider Storm Rider's personal attacks '<I>useful</I>' ? Do you consider false allegations useful ? Do you consider lies '<I>useful</i>' ?
 * You took time out from your busy schedule to admonish me for my behavior, but I can't help but notice that you left no messages for those other editors on their talk pages. Thanks for your concern, but try spreading it around in the future. I'm sure that the others could use your advice also, as far as <I>their</i> approaches are concerned.
 * p.s. It's pretty easy to tell from <I>your</i> behavior which '<I>team</i>' you're cheering for. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Lauer Can Suck It!
I noticed that you deleted Matt Lauer Can Suck It! with the stated reason being insulting redirect with no obvious purpose. I am not sure if you are aware of the film or not but it is the title of a fictitious book that is used in the film and is a plausible redirect. As Matt Lauer also starred in the scene where the book was featured, it's a stretch to say that the redirect is meant as an insult to Mr. Lauer. Perhaps you would reconsider? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind :) <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Friday,

Thanks for the welcome note. Much appreciated. I've been spending a lot of time reading the Policies and Guidelines, 5 Pillars etc. and look forward to beginning my contributions. Being a planner by nature, I'm trying to get a really good lay of the land before I start, and am I'm still trying to figure out if I were to start an article on my talk pages, or in the sandbox, and felt it was ready for going "live" how would you go about migrating it? I do understand that input from editors such as yourself is preferred if not necessary in some cases before an article is ready. But if you could please help clarifying this process I'd be very grateful. It's driving me nuts not to be able to figure it out.

Thank you in advance. Tanyavansoest (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Friday,

Gosh you're fast! That's great. Thanks so much for your support. I understand that there are a basically two options for moving articles: 1) I need the have the software i.e. move button added to my page (not available for new users??) OR 2) a senior editor such as yourself can move it.

Is that correct?

Also, as mentioned before, I'm just trying to get a lay of the land before getting started.

And on another note, just to keep things transparent. The reason I've become interested in Wikipedia and contributing to this project, is twofold - I have both a personal AND professional interest. I am a digital communications strategist (or at least that's what I'm meant to be), and manager for a PR agency (as outlined in my user page). So in addition to having the intent of making personal contributions, I will also be guiding my clients on how to make their own, in consideration of all the Guidelines and Principles.

On that note, I understand that although PR pros and the likes are discouraged from contributing on behalf of clients is discouraged it is not actively forbidden, and so long as they adhere to the Guidelines, they should not be subject to scrutiny beyond the usual, or criticism. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks much. Tanyavansoest (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

hello
beta was unbanned 2 weeks agp http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ABetacommand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.100.164 (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

LordLiberation
I got your edit. I did not understand your comment about articles being for discussion about the article and not general chit-chat about it because frankly, I see no difference between talking about an article and talking about one with the article being the subject. However, you have more experience than me, so I guess you must revoke my title as an offical editor on this wiki. I cannot continue work if I am doing my job wrong and abusing my priveliges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLiberation (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a troll. Just an intelligent and well-meaning guy who has trouble expressing himself, trying to find the right word for things, and is concerned asbout the consequences and results of his edits. I am merely explaining that I have a strong dislike of Peter Laird and his hatred for Venus of the TMNT. My hatred went to the extent that I kept on complaing about it on the articles on Venus, Peter Laird, and Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation. I was then concerned that it would ruin my reputation as an editor on Wikipedia. I was a little obsessive about it. I just couldn't think of a better term for when you get upset and enraged about thinks and just have to express yourself other than "explosive outburst". Sometimes hatred does that to you. If this only does further damaeg, then GOOD DAY! I AM NO LONGER AN EDITOR! I NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANYWAY! Ian Fairchild (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to help on wikipedia, but it seems that I only make things worse. If I cannot help in any way, I guess I will just stop editing forever. Ian Fairchild (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you expect me to say "No, please don't go! I'll give you a puppy!" then you're completely barking up the wrong tree.  If this kind of attempted emotional extortion is how you behave, then, yeah, it would be best if you found a different hobby.  If you're able to do useful editing here without silly teenage dramatics, then that's better still.  Your choice. Friday (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback from JBC3
I'm not sure if this is the place to post, but JBC3 seems to have "left the building" and the page in which he fulminated his ERRONEOUS assumptions is a locked archive now.

His first assumption, that the Ellenville website was the source of MY text is wrong; the new webmaster of the revamped Ellenville official website COPIED MY ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM the Wikipedia site. He hasn't bothered to revamp it, though, to reflect my later corrections. But so intent on ACTING on his false assumption, sans any DISCUSSION of it in the proper place, JBC3 just made his false accusations and kept promulgating them and the errors from them.

His next assumption, that if it wasn't a copyright violation, it was CIRCULAR, was also wrong. *I* never claimed the Wikipedia text ON the Ellenville website as the SOURCE of my Wikipedia text! *I* posted MY WORDS on Wikipedia FIRST, then the webmaster COPIED IT. My only reference to the page was to verify the list of the committees, boards, and commissions I added later, not that I needed to use the website to do so. Actually, I believe JBC3 linked to THAT particular page, which ALSO contained the cut&paste from Wikipedia; I only linked to the Ellenville website HOME page.

I'm normally a very calm guy, but I really REALLY resent some unknown person ACCUSING ME of various "crimes" I didn't commit, and taking a high-handed, impersonal, and presumptuous attitude and series of actions without FIRST politely and sincerely bringing up his concerns in the proper manner.

Kryolux (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias' RfC
Hope you don't mind. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm? Of course I don't mind. Friday (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've encountered a few editors in the past who became a bit upset at the fact that I reformatted their comments, so I just wanted to ensure you were aware of it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ill bang you
listen yh delete it again im going to rip your tongue out and make u eat it u wasteman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukhtar111 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Schools, arson threats and the Old School Song
Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the teeeeacher on the top...'. I remember it well. &#9786; Tonywalton Talk 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Awww man, we didn't have that one. Ours was to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic.. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school.."  It went on like that for some time.  Come to think of it.. it was fairly gruesome stuff.  Do kids really get in trouble for this stuff these days?  I must be old.  Oh, gotta run-- there's some kids in my yard.  *shakes fist* Friday (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To the tune of "Clementine" - "Build a bonfire, build a bonfire, put the teachers on the top, put more teachers on the bottom, and we'll burn the f$cking lot". We had simple tastes at school, we did. As for getting into trouble, there's a very worrying trend in the UK for over-reaction about everything at every possible moment for "health and safety" reasons. I blame the Government. And those pesky kids, of course. Tonywalton Talk 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To the tune of "Glory Glory Hallelujiah" (Ode to Joy?) "Glory, Glory Hallelujah, my teacher hit me with a ruler. Hid behind the door with an M44 and my teacher ain't teachin' no more." and to the tune of On Top of Old Smokey "On Top of Old Smokey, all covered with blood. I shot my poor teacher, with 44 scud." We were awful! <b style="font-family:Verdana; color:#6633FF;">StarM</b> 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong?
I do not seem to be much help these days. What am I doing that is wrong? Ian Fairchild (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. ''Hi there, I noticed the person is writing possible self promotional information, however they also appear to be a new user and a slight nicer touch would be helpful so they understand what they are doing wrong. No big deal but you might want to give them a template on COI which explains why we aren't a self promotional site. Cheers happy editing.'' Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? Friday (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no joke my friend, it's just something to watch out for and it is on the small bite end of the spectrum this I admit. I recently got tagged for biting a newbie myself on something that was admittedly a bit more serious. The only reason I say that in this case it would help to show him the relevant policies involved rather then a stark. "Wikipedia is not for self promotion." Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I need to apoligize to you. I didn't see that you were a sysop, I still think the reminder is warranted however I wouldn't have templated you. A note would be sufficient in these cases so I apoligize for templating a regular.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No apologies needed. And don't worry if I'm an admin- that doesn't mean I'm allowed to be a jerk. It's just that I think that actual hand-written words are generally better communication than slapping on some one-size-fits-all template.  I was rather surprised to see someone leaving me a template message to tell me that templates were preferable. I think templates are way overused, often by people who don't even understand what they mean.  Friday (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They are rather not a personable thing I agree. Even a quick link to WP:COI would have helped. When I first started I remember thinking that I could do anything I wanted to on Wikipedia without consequence because it was online, who knew me. I had to be reminded through several blocks how this wasn't the case but that this was a very structured enviroment with established rules and policies. Thankfully not everyone is quite the idiot I was but even the links can be that subliminal reminder that we all have to comply with the rules. Ok that's the last I have to say about it. Thanks for approaching this with maturity and grace even though you didn't (or don't) agree with the templates. Look forward to working with you in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The SBSFRATTSOUWLACOIAWWAYRFBOWA(YHMV) Barnstar

 * Bahahah! Thanks!  That's way better than those crappy, really-short-name barnstars. Friday (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Candc4 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC) no one gives me a barnstar im going home to eat a bucket of ice cream

Inclusion Trust
I see that you deleted Inclusion Trust, and yet it still exists, with full history intact. Can you explain what happened? (Frankly, I'm glad it's back, because I don't think it deserved speedy deletion.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The author recreated it. This happens all the time.  The new version actually has a couple sources... dunno how good they are, but yeah, based on what's there now, I agree with you.  I hope nobody speedies it.  It looks like it could be a legitimate topic for an article.  The first (deleted) version looked like a cut-n-paste, full of stuff like "We have an international reputation for excellence.."  Friday (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking unconventional editor support
Hi Friday,

We've had only a few exchanges, but by the quality of interaction and posts on your User Talk, it's clear that you are an authoritative editor to be trusted. For this reason I would like to propose a rather unconventional opportunity, which, given its last minute nature, you may not be likely to be interested in, let alone respond to - but hey, I'm going to give it a shot anyway.

Long story short: as previously introduced, I'm a PR consultant for Burson-Marsteller - a rather large global PR consultancy - and was recently charged with the task of developing the digital capabilities for our Singapore office. Tomorrow, I'm going to be giving an introductory, lunch-hour session on the nature of Wikipedia, the do's and don't's and everything else I've determined as critical information that my colleagues should be aware of IF and when a client say's to them "I want to have a Wikipedia article, can you advise".

On that note, I'm wondering if you would be AT ALL interested in taking 10-15 min out of you day to join our very casual introductory session and answer any of our outstanding questions...concerns etc. You'd be most welcome to listen in on the whole thing of course...which will approximately run for about 45 min. If you chose to do so, I, the moderator would welcome you jumping in at any given time to contribute, contest, applaud...whatever you felt appropriate.

I'm in Singapore which is GMT+7 meaning that as I write this it's 8:30 pm on THURSDAY. If you are anywhere in the US...let's say New York, it's would be exactly 8:30 am THURSDAY MORNING for example. SO, yes, there's a big time diff., and I would be giving this session at 12pm Friday my time...whatever that translates into in your time, it's likely going to be evening on Wednesday.

I know this is a shot in the dark, but I would very very much welcome senior input such as yours if you at all interested.

I would propose that we do this via Skype...but there doesn't have to be any image on your end if you're not keen. Of course, we'd have our camera open so you could see us :)

My name again, is Tanya van Soest and I'm found under tanyavansoest on skype...here of course...or via tanyavansoest@gmail.com should you wish to converse off Wikipedia.

In the event that you cannot, or do not want to have anything to do with this, and you think you may know of another editor who might be interested, I'd welcome the suggestion.

Thank you in advance, for at the very least, consideration of this request.

Tanyavansoest (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld, the worst wikipedian of all
Provide these articles to your equally appreciative cohorts on wikipedia review especially Somey:

Blofeld is capable of translating many quality articles:

Tenerife,Xalapa, Chinandega, La Guerra Gaucha, La Palma, Chalatenango, University of El Salvador Apastepeque, Altamirano, Chiapas, Culture of El Salvador, Andrés de Santa María, 1811 Independence Movement, Santiago José Celis and David Joaquín Guzmán, Martín Cárdenas (botanist), Battle of Acajutla, Diego de Holgiun‎, Coffee production in Ecuador‎, Caracas Aerial Tramway‎, Tioda, Iglesia de la Matriz ‎ , Juvencio Valle,Buenaventura Abarzuza Ferrer, Fernando Abril Martorell, Alberto Aguilera, Manuel Aguirre de Tejada, Elías Ahúja y Andría, Santiago Alba Bonifaz, Víctor Alba, José Luis Albareda y Sezde, Juan Manuel Albendea Pabón, Cristina Alberdi, Vicente Albero, José María Albiñana, Gil Álvarez de Albornoz, Felipe Alcaraz, Alberto Alcocer y Ribacoba, Jesús Alique, Luis Almarcha Hernández, Gabriel Alomar, Alonso III Fonseca, Juan Alvarado y del Saz, Pedro Álvarez de Toledo y Colonna, Diego de Alvear y Ponce de León, Isaac Felipe Azofeifa,Andrés Amado Reygondaud, Pascual Amat, Iñaki Anasagasti, Francisco Aparicio y Ruiz, Pere Ardiaca, Luis Armiñán Pérez, Jordi Arquer, Juvencio Valle, Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, Fuerzas Populares de Liberación Farabundo Martí, Rafael Menjívar Larín, Giovanni Buscaglione, Hernán Ergueta, Jesús Elías, Oruro Symphony Orchestra, Rionegro, Antioquia, Catedral de San Nicolás el Magno, Cristóbal Rojas, Sport in Tenerife,Rafael Ángel García, Jorge Gallardo,Juan Bernal Ponce, Bernardo de Legarda, Pablo Atchugarry, Virgilio Rodríguez Macal, Carazamba, Carlos Solórzano, Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Blanca Olmedo etc.

Blofeld is capable of bringing articles to featured status:

Abbas Kiarostami, Casino Royale (2006 film), a few more Chicago related ones recently.

Blofeld has contributed over 40 GAs to wikipedia.

His articles like Deforestation in Brazil have won best article competitions on here and he has contributed many articles related to forestry and agriculture such as Deforestation in Sri Lanka, Tea production in Sri Lanka. Blofeld has started many new wikiprojects such as WP:FILMBIO, WP:Tibet and many more, projects which now have many fully functioning members who are help improve the coordination of the project.

Blofeld as recently set up an intertranswiki project to improve the quality of articles being translated form other wikipedias. That is to admit my flaws with creating sub stubs and making a big effort to try to improve quality.

In the last week or so alone I've created 5 DYKs in the pipeline including Obesity in China and Architecture of Mumbai, over 50 in total. I have made a big effort to try to improve the quality of the dire Pakistan/Bangladesh articles on here and trying to focus on quality .Not to mention the tens of OTRS agreements I've gone out of my way to make to improve the quality of wikipedia with lots of photographs of places all over the world. Like these and images of Norfolk Island etc.

What I am trying to say is that I am far more beneficial to this project than you and the people who gutlessly attack me on wikipedia review give me credit for. Yes I have created a lot of stubs, and I wish all of them had been started fully but I am trying my very best to start articles which I think are notable and will be useful once developed. I will gradually be working to improve quality of existing articles over the next year or so. I just don't know why people attack me and compare me to trolls. I am not this unreasonable mindless bot that you and the others seem to think I am. If you want an article expanded just ask me and I'll do my very best to expand it. I just think it is low to go talking about me negatively behind my back. What we want is the highest quality I want this too. The difference is because so few editors seme interested in creating new articles somebody has to start articles on notable topics which we should have, even if short. Ideally I'd like every article full. So while it may seem to you all I do is drill worthless stubs and couldn't care about wikipedia I do a great deal more work in other areas than you give me credit for, this is why it is hurtful when you go bad-mouthing me. If you want an article expanded, just ask man. I just don't know why there is always this hostility, we all have the same objectives we just disagree in the way it is done. Is there really a need to demean me behind my back because I have created stubs which you disagree with? What is the point in bullying me on wikipedia review. What does it achieve? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've never disputed that you have a very high score. I was taking about one incident I remember in which I thought you interacted very poorly.  Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project- all your emotional pleading can't change that.  Friday (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NW RfA
I haven't been watching RfA lately, so maybe I've missed some things, but I was disappointed to see your vote on NuclearWarfare's RfA. It's like the RFC just went straight over your head. In particular, pay attention to this statement from Balloonman: "when you go on your anti-kid rants you turn people off. Your view on teenagers has come to outweigh your message... when you criticize somebody for being childish/a kid/etc, your point is lost because the packaging buries the point you attempt to make. Your view is so pervasive and well known that when you bring it up, people tune out. When you start beating the age horse, it sends the message that you are not looking at the individual for who it is, but rather are blinded by your personal filter. Right or wrong, this interferes with your ability to communicate constructively with others on the project".

In short, you didn't need to mention the "just another chat room kid" did you? You know it irks people, so why do it? The first part, while I disagree with it, I can just about see why you'd oppose for reasons from months ago. Just. It's a worthy enough oppose reason on its own (even though it makes it clear you haven't read the nomination, which is poor etiquette). But the anti-kids, anti-chatroom Friday, who I thought had gone, seems to be back. Please reconsider your approach to how your vote on RfAs. I'm not saying support everyone. I'm not saying your opinion is a bad one, or wrong, or anything like that. I'm just saying that making comments you know irritate and generally aggravate is simply out of order, particularly as I took the trouble to make an RFC related to this sort of behaviour. It's just like you totally ignored the very valid concerns raised. There are much better ways to express your opinion than the way you do. Please think before you post such things.  Majorly  talk  18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want chat room kids as admins.  Is there really some way of saying this that would be an improvement?  None of the words I used are offensive or vulgar, so I have a hard time believing a rewording would make this better.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like it's the content of the message that people dislike, rather than the form.   Friday (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. "He's just another chat room kid, right?" Could simply be rephrased along the lines of "I'm uncomfortable with people who use IRC as administrators". Or "I don't think children make very good admins". Or "I feel adminship should take place on the wiki, and not off wiki". And numerous others. The way you say it right now sounds like you have an axe to grind; the "voice" of your words sounds bitter, like you're spitting the words out, or speaking with clenched teeth. There are so many ways of expressing an opinion without upsetting people in the process. It seems you fail to comprehend this basic fact. Or perhaps your communicative skills are simply not up to scratch. Either way, please don't just dismiss me again. There is no need for this, and it's entirely down to the way you express yourself. There are many people who oppose a lot at RFAs, for reasons often similar to yours. They express them in a way which even makes me want to agree with them - they do so courteously, politely, respectfully - qualities your comments never have. A tip: calling someone a kid is generally considered more off-putting that "child", which is more respectful (or even teenager). And the way you wrote it as a question was done poorly as well, as if you were looking for someone to challenge you. What would be the point in doing that, when you've made up your mind before you even read the nomination?  Majorly  talk  19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I don't appreciate the edit summaries, like "sigh" which suggest you don't give a damn what I'm saying. It's incredibly rude and patronising. It's funny, you're always telling others to grow up, but "sighing" when someone is trying to give you some advice is precisely the sort of thing a stroppy teenager does.  Majorly  talk  19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Friday. I'm Airplaneman. I ran into this dispute at NW's RfA, and after reading this and other complaints about "kids", I have to agree with Majorly. All I'm asking is please be a bit more considerate. Thanks. Airplaneman  talk 19:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A tip: calling someone a kid is generally considered more off-putting that "child", which is more respectful (or even teenager). <--- I would have to disagree here; certainly it depends on context, but lots of teenagers will in certain context refer to themselves as kids, but almost never as children, which to me brings to mind someone who needs a booster seat to reach the keyboard. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought too- in the part of the world I'm in, kids call themselves kids all the time, but would take umbrage at the word "child". If "teenager" is uncontroversial, I can use that word instead.  However I have no confidence that I'd get any less complaints if I opposed someone for being a "teenager".  I strongly suspect the people that object to the substance of my oppose will do so regardless of which exact word I use. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you find the way Friday refers to people he doesn't like at all appropriate, Soap? Maybe it's because I'm British, but I don't know anyone who refers to their children as "kids". Children is generally the respectful way of saying it. But this is besides the point. The comment is completely unnecessary, and I just wish Friday would learn to speak to or about people in a more respectful manner. That's all I want - him to show an ounce of respect. Not for me, but for the people he makes needless derogatory remarks about at on RFA. It's not much to ask for.  Majorly  talk  19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you opposed with something like "Teenagers are all hormonal idiots and are generally clueless", yes, you'd get flak for that, and rightly so, because it's needlessly rude, inaccurate and doesn't help the discussion in any way. However if you opposed with "I'm sorry, I just don't think teenagers make good admins for x reason and y reason..." you might get someone who disagreed, but the substance of your complaint is actually seen, rather than just "Oh no, it's Friday off on one again...".  Majorly  talk  19:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because I'm British, but I don't know anyone who refers to their children as "kids". This must be a linguistic difference between British and American English... while referring to somebody the way Friday did can be offensive, referring to one's own kids as kids, is fairly common on this side of the pond. Perhaps there is more linguistic differences here as well?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an editor who was (depending on your definition of the word) a "child" not too long ago, it is my opinion that, of all the applicable terms, "kid" is the most unprofessional; and while I don't find it particularly offensive, I can see how others might. "Child", "minor", "youth", "teenager" and others are more neutral. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unprofessional is a good word, I find the use of kid to be more colloquial... it is the one that often gets incorporated into nicknames a lot---often to describe somebody who is young that excels in their actions. Stu "the Kid" Ungar was a 3 time WSOP bracelet winner, Daniel "Kid Poker" Negreanau (SP) is a finalist for the 2009 Poker Hall of Fame, 11 time bracelet winner Phil Hellmuth is often described as a Kid when he won the bracelet.  In other words, it is not the word itself, but the inflection behind it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you want Hellmuth as an admin? ::shudder:: Now, Negreanu, I like. -- SPhilbrick  T  21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Negreanu, I think...? I used to watch those guys every night on ESPN back before I discovered wiki. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An example of a courteous and respectful age/maturity related oppose here. It says what it needs to without rubbing it in the face of the candidate; it provides ample evidence of what the opposer claims, and shows the opposer has actually read the nomination and taken the time to answer the questions. Compare to your oppose: you immediately make it obvious that you hadn't read the nomination; you didn't provide any evidence to back up your claims; and you ended on a needless derogatory remark posed as a question. Not a single person questioned Malleus's oppose. That's because his oppose, while strongly worded and to the point, managed to remain respectful to the candidate without insulting them.  Majorly  talk  19:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This example caused me to ROFLMAO... Malleus being cited for a courteous and respectfule oppose ;-) I love ya Malleus, but seeing this caused me to chuckle!  That being said, I have to agree with Majorly as well.  I think your oppose would have been stronger had you explained your concern about IRC.  Hell, NW gave you all you needed in his nom.  He admitted to letting another user block him to enforce a self imposed wiki-break and he did so via IRC.  By explaining your concerns without the "kids/children/teenager" your oppose might garner more traction.  For example" "Oppose:  According to the nom, the user admits to lacking the self control necessary to enforce a self-imposed wikibreak and thus accepted an offer for a block.  He did this via IRC thus continuing the concerns raised in his last RfA related to over use and reliance upon off-wiki communications."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My 2¢ on the matter: Friday, I don't mind you or anybody else opposing over age concerns at an RfA. I really don't, at all. I can see where that viewpoint is coming from and can actually agree with it to a certain degree. It's true, in real life we see a general trend of immaturity at younger ages, and the ongoing debate is how much it should affect the community's perception of an RfA candidate. You may be right that some others would object to the substance of your ageism opposes, regardless of form. However, in this case it's really a matter of the words that you chose; "He's still a chat room kid, right?" is a semi-derogatory comment toward NW, and sure looks like it was intended to be inflammatory. Let's face it, you probably have zero respect for Majorly at this point, so you didn't listen to his message very closely. However, he really has a good point here; better words could have been used to express the sentiment "I don't think that minors have the maturity needed for adminship". Generally, clueful comments like that will be left alone, and the participant will be respected for their opinion as long as they state it reasonably. That's my view. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  be kind to newcomers 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll refrain from using the word "kid" in favor of "teenager", I guess. I had no idea there were such connotations associated with it- as I said, in my little corner of the world, this is not the case at all. Where I come from, "child" would be far more offensive when applied to a teenager. But I guess this is a regional thing. Friday (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've misinterpreted somewhere. Why would you ever refer to a teenager as anything but a teenager? In any case, the problem is with the tone of your comments, much less the content. So thanks for listening and striking it... however, it's not actually changed or solved the problem in any way. Your comment means exactly the same thing, and still sounds needlessly derogatory. I know you don't care what I say, so why not listen to what JamieS/Balloonman says above, about how to better phrase your objection without insulting people in the process? I expect you're sick of me coming here. I'm sick of coming here too, and the only way it'll stop is if you take on board the advice numerous people are giving you.  Majorly  talk  21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think what Majorly is trying to point out here is that you maybe should have struck the entire phrase "chat room kid" instead of just kid. The "chat room" part is also pretty inflammatory. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 22:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, now. I'm willing to chalk up "kid" to regional differences.  But now you're complaining about "chat room"?  You can't possibly be serious.  I've been using the net a good many years, and I'm very confident that "chat room" is not remotely offensive terminology.  This is beginning to sound like people simply going out of their way to look for offense.  Friday (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On their own, "chat room" and "kid" are not at all a problem. But "chat room kid", as told to you, numerous times by several people, is. Look at the response on the RFA for a better explanation. I honestly can't see what the difficulty is in seeing and understanding this.  Majorly  talk  23:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This must be an internet thing. I'm quite sure that I have no such trouble communicating in real life.  He's a young person (kid) who hangs out in IRC (a chat room).  Thus, "chat room kid".  If he hung out at the mall, he'd be a "mall kid".  The further statements at the RFA do not clarify this issue for me at all.  I can only conclude that people have issue with my opinion, and they're acting like I said something offensive because they're unable to articulate their objections. This has now gone beyond bizarre. Friday (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is calling someone a "chat room kid" a nice, pleasant thing to do? Is it something you'd like to be called? It's clearly said with the intention of it being a negative remark. Why not say "Uses IRC"? What's wrong with that? It's so much better. Why do you need to say it in the most unpleasant way possible?  Majorly  talk  00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling somebody a "kid" who uses a "chat room" is not really offensive. On the other hand, summing up NW's editing history between 2 RfAs as "he's still just a [silly] chat room kid, right?" does indeed come across as negative. Saying that "chat room" is an offensive term means that we're nit-picking the phrase a little too much. Neither is "kid" an offensive or necessarily a demeaning term. It was the whole statement together that didn't come off right. <font style="color:#4682b4">Jamie <font style="color:#50C878">S93  be kind to newcomers 00:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an internet thing. A kid who hangs out in a chat room is very different from a "chat room kid". The first objectifies the chat room, as it should; the chat room is an object. The second objectifies the kid. It is totalizing. The identity is associated not with the kid but with the chat room. In a related matter you may upset some artists by referring to their art as "abstract art" rather than "non-objective" (or discussing the verb abstraction) because "abstract" describes the art in a fashion that is inaccurate. Likewise describing someone as a felon, while accurate tends to subsume any identity they might have aside from the crime they committed. We aren't here to enforce political correctness, but I think we all can be direct about why we disagree without falling back to the assumption that those of us on the other side are just incapable of articulation. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem I have with this. Jamie's comment above is a perfect example. I said something "negative". Well, gosh, I was opposing an RFA. This is inherently saying something negative. The entire complaint comes off sounding to me like this: "You opposed an RFA.  Opposing is mean.  Don't be mean." Do you see that as long as this is the gist of the complaint, I cannot possibly regard the complaint as reasonable? Call it objectifying if you must, but "he's a chat room kid" is no more totalizing or objectifying than "he's a good editor". Those two statements are equivalent in that regard, yet people saying the latter don't get these kinds of complaints. So it must be the opposition that is the problem. Well, sorry, but RFA is about evaluating the candidate. This means sometimes I support, sometimes I oppose. Maybe I'm running short on patience at the moment, but I've heard this same tune over and over, and it does get boring after a while. Am I really required to give away a puppy with each vote to avoid upsetting delicate sensibilities? Friday (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and explain my problem. In explaining it, I'm gonna use a few words which are pretty horrible, but here goes.  Let's pretend that Candidate A is running for Adminship and is black.  Let's also pretend that I don't like black people, for whatever reason.  If I oppose candidate A and leave a statement like "Oppose because candidate A is black", that will probably be called out as reprehensible, narrow minded and so forth.  But if I opposed saying "Opposed, candidate A is just a nigger" that is MUCH more reprehensible.  The first exposes my prejudice but the second reduces the candidate to the word.  I'm not suggesting that your oppose because NW likes IRC and might be immature is on the same level as an opposition because of someone's skin color (it isn't).  I'm suggesting that the difference between the first oppose I offered and the second mark the same sort of difference between "Oppose, I don't like IRC admins and I think the candidate is too young/immature" and he's still a chat room kid, right? Protonk (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to back Friday up here. We've sysopped quite a few of what he would call "IRC teenage sysops" recently, and to be honest (with one notable exception) they've been frankly clueless.  We need more mature sysops with a lot more experience and far more vital, clue.  I don't like to point fingers, but you really have to include a lot of RFA recent candidates, including those that've passed, as not having this important quality. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We've also sysopped full-grown adults who have subsequently been desysopped by ArbCom for abuse. I'd bet the number of involuntarily desysopped adults far outweighs the number of involuntarily desysopped teenagers. "People with big ears occasionally graffiti the sides of buildings. I don't think that's a reason to kill all people with big ears." – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Straw man. The number of involuntary desysopped adults is clearly higher, because we didn't previously sysop teenagers.  I'm not saying that teenage admins is a bad thing (well no actually I am, because I'm working on the balance of probabilities), merely that it has a higher possibility of being so. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My post included quite a bit of sarcasm, FWIW. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may well have done, but that doesn't mean it wasn't accurate. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm generally isn't accurate. Anyway, off I go... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We have always sysopped people of all ages. There was an 11 year old admin in 2003. I have seen many clueless people who don't use IRC. It doesn't mean they are all a problem. This is besides the point though, as Protonk says.  Majorly  talk  01:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think friday is in the wrong to say that we should sysop fewer (or no) users who hang out on IRC or who are immature. That's not my point and I don't think it is majorly's point. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not my point, and I'm beginning to tire of people who think it is. I don't care what is being said, it's the way that it is being said I take issue with. Friday doesn't seem to be able to grasp this simple fact and try and rectify it.  Majorly  talk  01:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Friday, do you still not get it? Have a look at the good way to oppose somebody that won't get you this hassle (Malleus's oppose, VirtualSteve's oppose on the RFA). Oppose people like that - show some respect, some courtesy. Then there will be no more hassle from me/other people. Problem solved. Why is it other people manage to oppose in a nice way, but you fail to do this? Why do you find it so difficult? We've even shown you how to do it, what is stopping you?  Majorly  talk  01:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Friday, on another note, could you please consider archiving your talk page? I'm having trouble loading it at times. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This conversion has now been Godwinned. I can easily believe that "kid" has different connotation in different parts of the world, but I simply won't entertain comparisons of the words "kid" and "chat room" to the word "nigger". Maybe the pro-child-admin movement needs a new spokesman, or maybe I'm just dense, but I can't find much in the way of a reasonable complaint in all this typing that's been going on here. Friday (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're clearing ignoring large parts of the text. I'll repeat my comment, since you missed it: Friday, do you still not get it? Have a look at the good way to oppose somebody that won't get you this hassle (Malleus's oppose, VirtualSteve's oppose on the RFA). Oppose people like that - show some respect, some courtesy. Then there will be no more hassle from me/other people. Problem solved. Why is it other people manage to oppose in a nice way, but you fail to do this? Why do you find it so difficult? We've even shown you how to do it, what is stopping you?
 * Perhaps you are dense, as this has nothing to do with child admins.  Majorly  talk  15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Majorly, would you please stop beating this horse? It's quite dead.  The "hassle" to which you refer is now clearly coming from you.  Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is still here, Antandrus. Friday will still continue to oppose people in the nastiest, rudest manner possible, and I find this unacceptable, and so do several others. He hasn't even acknowledged it might be a problem. Until he does, this issue will not be dropped, because it's unacceptable behaviour. But you are right - Friday is too stubborn to even bother reading what people have to say, and I very much doubt whether any more reasonable attempts to get him to listen will have any effect on deaf ears. I suggest therefore he continues doing as he does - opposing in the nastiest way possible - so I can simply add it to the list for the next RFC. Because there will be another RFC if he doesn't cut it out.  Majorly  talk  15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not let the marketplace of ideas handle this one? If Friday's oppose rationales are unconvincing or offensive, then they will fail to garner any support, and perhaps even push undecided !voters into the "support" column. That's how most discussions work - and RfA is supposedly a discussion. If someone says something nonsensical or offensive, you ignore them or perhaps revise your own opinion in reaction. As far as offensiveness and nastiness to the candidate, I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to put up with abuse. But: if a candidate can't handle a single !voter's opinion that they "seem like a chat-room kid", then they will have a really tough time as an admin. In fact, I'd question their suitability, since the sorts of abuse they'll likely face as an admin will easily dwarf Friday's one-line query about their maturity. MastCell Talk 17:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I took great pains to note that what I said was an analogy and point out where parallels did and did not lie. I guess I shouldn't have bothered.  I won't trouble you anymore. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statements made a lot more sense to me thatn some other people's. I've re-read what you wrote again.. and your objection still seems to be reducing the candidate to a word.  As I pointed out above, this exact same problem exists when people say "Support- he's a good editor".  So I can't buy that this is really a problem.  Again, I come back to the conclusion that it's the oppose that has people bent out of shape.   I hope you're willing to believe that I really have read what you've said, and I really did try to understand it as best I can.  Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This has gone on quite long enough. You kids need to stop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Punched card equipment
Hi. I'm trying to establish a page for punch card readers to correspond to the one for card punches, which people were confusing with keypunches (and are not the same).

Do you object to having a separate article for card readers?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not particularly. I just saw the content that was currently there and thought the topic was already well covered in the other article.  I figured since the topics were inexorably linked, it might make sense to have one article rather than two.  If you have a better plan, I have no objections.  Friday (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. The Hollerith article doesn't delve into card handling equipment, which was being confused in the CDC article.


 * Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)