User talk:Wisdom89/Archive 10

Thank you
Thank you for being the second person to support my RfA nomination, Wisdom. I appreciate your confidence. Cbl62 (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi there, good to see you have decided to return to Wikipedia. Welcome back !! 

--  Tinu  Cherian  - has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! --  Tinu  Cherian  - 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Hey a cookie! Thanks for the welcome back. Thank goodness it was just a brief two day respite. I honestly thought it was going to be much longer, but things worked out for the best. Cheers!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Report at UAA
There's a bot-reported username (User:Iwillkillutomorrow) at UAA, that I think may warrant some quick attention. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks!  TN ‑  X   - Man  16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A user name such as that should probably be hard-blocked as it goes beyond scratching the surface of what is disruptive. However, since I am not an administrator I cannot do so. I'm sure someone will take care of it. If it's still there while I'm writing this, I'll make a note.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've been blocked indefinitely. Good catch to notify someone about it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed after I posted that you were not, in fact, an admin. I always thought you were though, and to echo other people's thoughts on this page, I'd be more than happy to support you if you do decide to take a crack at RfA. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence - still up in the air about it, but I am starting to lean towards a tentative "yes", perhaps in a couple of months : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your last one was in April, whenever you do decide to go for it again, I'll be supporting. Useight (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Good luck to you!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

form vs content
How about you try and focus your response on what I'm saying and not only on how I am saying it? At least that's how I mostly handle my own comments. Everyme 03:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes how you say something is more important that what you're saying.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, whenever I intend to have sex. On wiki, it's just about the validity of arguments. Everyme 03:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Wisdom, long time no see! I just came by and saw on your user page that you had a bar saying, "This page design was created by RyRy5." Really? I don't recall creating that user page design you have. -- RyRy  ( talk ) 04:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey RyRy, well you specifically didn't design it for me, but I lifted it from someone's page - I honestly forget who : ) I think it's just referring to that particular section though, not the entire userpage.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I'm not "RyRy5" anymore, I'm "RyRy". ;) Well, I'll be a different username tomorrow ("RyanCross"), so if you want to change and update the name, go right ahead. :) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 05:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Wisdom89, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template change
Hey Wisdom89. You missed the news. The genre field has been removed from both the musician and album infoboxes (finally) to remove a one of the most heated POV battlefields in all of Wiki. Something that should have been done eons ago. The song/single infobox has been exempt, for now, with a separate discussion coming in the next few weeks. With likely the same result seeing as how this change is getting major raves and cheers. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh geez, nevermind, I misunderstood the edit summary/edit. Thanks for the heads up!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I, as well, would like to thank you for you support of my RfA. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89 is on/off line
Can I ask for the code to that so I can place it on my user page? I would modify it to state "Javascap", naturally. Thank you, Javascap (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'm aware that the endorsement of an RfA regular like yourself is particularly helpful in persuading others, and I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Small Question
Are you an admin? Just curious. RockManQ (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not - although, I do try and undertake clerking roles to aid administrators at various noticeboards.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I always assumed you were. Happy Editing. RockManQ  (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, happy editing to you too : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He really should be. Wisdom would make an excellent admin. Useight (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, Useight. Cheers my man.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking through your contribs, I think you're ready. Would you like another go at adminship? RockManQ (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're possibly planing something for november, I'd be happy to nom, or co-nom, if needed. RockManQ  (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Rush instrumentals
Honestly, not everything needs citation. If you actually listened to the songs, you wouldn't need citation, they're just facts. Mustkillroy (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some basic information, I'd agree with you. However, things such as instrumental parts that are derived from other famous works or quotes from band members, definitely require sources.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Source, huh? Okay, how about the song itself? Mustkillroy (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's original research.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, listen. Nobody who has heard the song "La Villa Strangiato" is going to dispute the fact that the riff from "Powerhouse" is used several times. Mustkillroy (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly can you be so confident? Not everybody is a diehard Rush fan, and not everyone is familiar with Powerhouse. The same goes for the Overture riff. These claims require citations. That's just how Wikipedia works.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one who has heard both songs is going to argue. I honestly don't even see why it's fair to judge if you've never heard either song. Mustkillroy (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Status report on the Country outlines (Around the World) project
Penubag has been hard at work developing awards for this project. He has completed a very professional looking medal, and is almost done with a trophy that is truly awesome - both of these awards are visually stunning.

I and a few others have been working steadily on the country outlines - one for every country of the world! They're shaping up nicely. So far, 28 of them have been moved to article space - these aren't complete, but they are complete enough to be made available for readers to benefit from them. The rest of the set still includes temporary data that was generated by template (because it matched most but not all of the countries), and before the lists can be moved to article space, all the temporary data needs to be checked for accuracy, and if incorrect it needs to be replaced with correct information.

The effort on the lists has been on 3 fronts:
 * 1) Working on the lists in article space to complete them so they will be good examples for editors working on the rest of the set.
 * 2) Adding or correcting other data (fixing redlinks, filling in blanks, etc.).  The main type of work participants in "the contest" will be doing.  The reason we're doing this is to get a feel for it, to develop the fastest methods for each type of task, etc.
 * 3) Improving the overall design and implenting changes on all 247 pages, whether in article space or not.

There has been some opposition to us running the contest based on edit counts or iterations. The concern is that we should reward quality work and not quantity, for fear of crappy edits done quickly without thought. I pointed out that the collection of pages are drafts in the Wikipedia namespace (therefore posing no danger to article space) and that most of the work needs to be done with power tools like AWB and Linky (which are specifically designed for repetitive work), but the reply was that we shouldn't set the precedent of rewarding barnstars for numerically-based tasks, and implied the threat of continuously MfD'ing the contest if we attempted to do so (like they did with the Awards Center - I was very surprised and disappointed that participants didn't step up to defend it). So we need to be careful in determining what exactly the awards will represent, and how they will be awarded.

Since rewarding iterations (passes with AWB on all of the pages in the set) are out, we really don't need the globe in stand anymore. Two awards should suffice.

Once we get started with the contest, I'd like to kick the whole thing off with a round of medals for those dedicated few who have worked hard on the project so far.

What do you think of all of this?

Your comments and suggestions are most welcome.

The Transhumanist 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: E-mail
I have responded via e-mail. Useight (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

username
Hello Wisdom I'm just getting back to you on the message you left. I too in retrospect did not like the username, and was only using it until I found a more suitable username because the one that I had first thought of was apparrently too close to an active user. I have since attempted to change my useranme and am very sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused you. By the way how do you create a user page? I am obvously new and would like to know how to do that.BrendanKBOT (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did not cause any kind of inconvenience. Your name was merely flagged because of the string "bot" in your username. I didn't want you to be blocked unnecessarily. Cheers mate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I actually was going to change it anyway, but I got lost on the vortex of wikipedia pages, but thanks for the warning. It actuallly stood for Brothers Of Tucson its effectivly a fanpage that tracks all of the professional teams that use Tucson, AZ, and we get our information from Wikipedia Tucson, Arizona. Many thanks and all the best! BrendanKBOT (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck
I saw some comments on Useight's and Pedro's talk page, and just wanted to say good luck (if you know what I mean). ;) – RyanCross  ( talk ) 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note to Ryan and anyone else, but let's keep this open - see Pedro :  Chat  08:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
I -ahem- am going around wishing other Wikipedians a Happy Halloween. So here's yours! Happy Halloween, RockManQ  (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy Halloween to you too!. Nice Jack  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NP, just had to format him a bit, he was eating the section below. Cheers, RockManQ  (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Renin-angiotensin system
Er... I just wondered whether these references would satisfy you because I copied them from the aliskiren, remikiren and CYT006-AngQb articles. Only the latter was written by me :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims just needed something to solidify them. They work just fine. Don't worry about pleasing or satisfying me :) Cheers mate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Request time
Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 4 needs a signature and some questions answered. Good luck. Pedro : Chat  16:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to shove a signature under your acceptance. It's not needed but dot the i's and cross the t's Pedro : Chat  16:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your nomination. I'm pretty sure it holds the strongest support I've ever made. :-) -- Koji †  17:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's your strongest support you've ever made... sheesh, calling his UUA work a bit niave ;0--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err on the side of non-bitey I always say.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GOOOD LUCK! — Realist  2  18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME!
--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, is that you?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Signed --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck my friend. Tiptoety  talk 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ack, why didn't you tell me? I would of loved to co-nom someone who would be such a good admin. Anyways, hope you pass. Cheers, RockManQ  (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * two noms, IMHO, is the perfect number of noms... more than two and you start getting people going, OMG how many noms does a person want.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No one can have enough noms :P (just kidding of course). Cheers, RockManQ  (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Daylight saving ....
.... is over. (The time on your user page!)--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * hehe, thank you.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA
Don't worry about your RfA. If it gets to the point where one more more vote might make a difference then I'll be on your side. But really, why would anyone want to be be an administrator anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey MF, thanks for the supportive words. I asked myself at the end of RfA 3 if I would go again - and for a while I wasn't sure, but what I found myself doing was actual non-admin admin stuff (if that makes any sense). I figured if I could do that and not receive any condemnation, then I could certainly help the project with the extra buttons.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had two RfA bashings, and I won't be having any more. What I've learned though is that you can conduct yourself like an administrator ought to conduct him or her self, regardless of whether some self-chosen and tiny clique decides that you can or cannot be trusted with a few extra buttons that most of them are themselves incompetent in the use of. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that your RfA was unsuccessful. If I can offer any advice, my talk page and email are both open. Best, AGK 13:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you're not the first to take a while to pass RFA. Look at Werdna, it took him what, 7? You're a great user, just work on the specific areas highlighted in the oppose section. &mdash; Ceran (sing / see) 13:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments guys, but honestly, I've been following the advice of those in the oppose section for three RfAs now, and it doesn't seem possible to appease the community. I understand that you can't get everyone to support, but these outcomes just cement the notion that RfA is a godawful unholy process. I am now joining the ranks of Malleus.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's gotta be a crat somewhere on the pedia that can tell most of the opposes are made for the lulz.-- Koji †  16:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I just couldn't stomach going through another six days of that. RfA is just too brutal. I don't want Wiki-scars..and dude..your edit summary..Green Day is awesome : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I know I opposed, but for what it's worth I feel you were unfairly lambasted. And the stupid !votes from macy & mixwell & others were completely uncalled-for. If it helps, they were fairly roundly chastised on IRC for doing it. [ roux  ] [ x ] 16:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say Roux, that you had the courtesy to explain your oppose and your reasons for it. As did the majority of opposers. I've never got an issue with RFA opposition of almost any kind, except when it is an attack, plain wrong or cooked up via IRC or email. So the second part of your comment is at least mariginally heart warming. If people are too cowardly to debate and discuss on Wikipedia a given RFA candidate, and use IRC or email instead, perhaps they need to consider their involvement with that process or indeed this project - a project that at it's very root relies on transparency and openness. Pedro : Chat  16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Roux, I must echo Pedro here. While still dismayed, it's uplifting to know that some have the courtesy to explain themselves cooly and calmly. That's all I ask for. Still sucks to opposed though : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is disheartening. I wake up in the morning and the first thing I see is that Wisdom has withdrawn. Most unfortunate. Useight (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I wish he hadn't withdrawn so soon... oh well...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto, as well. I really feel like you would have passed.  —  Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 08:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ping
You've got mail. Nancy talk  08:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider...
...very soon. 'Nuff said. You can reopen and hopefully it will get to the right result. Frank |  talk  13:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfA.....
Hello Wisdom. I come home from work and see you've withdrawn your RfA - I wanted to add some comments, but I'll obviously change them given the situation. I actually think you've got a lot to give here and do some damn fine work. That said, the reason why I opposed was because I think you've got a few minor issues that we need to fix before you become an admin. They're easy fixes and I'd like to work with you. I actually have a lot of time for you and have a lot of respect. I'm not suggesting admin coaching or anything like that - more like a wiki friendship(!) where we can exchange talk messages or emails and I can maybe review your contributions every few weeks. Let me know what you think.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You would've made a good admin. Fit my criteria for sure! Looking forward to seeing you wield the mop and bucket some time soon :) Regards, -- Flewis (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I'll get back to you.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm not sure you can get more condescending than Ryan's post above. Start the oppose chain-reaction, then tell him you'll adopt him? Tan   &#124;   39  04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to say anything.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, I read it completely differently. HE opposed in good faith, but sees potential in the Wisdom.  I thought it was a great effort to extend an olive branch of peace.  *I*'ve done the same thing--- Scott5114 being an example.  He failed his first RfA explicitly because I opposed him... heck, you can also point to Tanathalas, another person who failed their first RfA in part because I opposed... but I helped both of them AFTER their RfA because I saw potential in both of them.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan did make a fair oppose, partially. However, the pile-on is not what's bugging me. He accused me of participating in RfA merely to acquire status as an admin so that my thoughts and opinions would carry substantially more weight in discussions. Where somebody ever got that notion, I can't say. It is simply untrue and epitomizes what I consider bad faith.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't like that part of his oppose either... it does make assumptions about people's motives.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the point of extending an olive branch after you threw someone under the bus? It's a slap in the face to someone who can't hit back - if Wisdom wants to ever be an admin. In order for Wisdom to have any chance at passing an RfA, he has to ingratiate himself with the heavy-hitters; the people who wield an inordinate amount of clout in an RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite is one of them. I hate to say it, Balloonman, but I had to appease you after my first failed RfA. I had to come to you, hat-in-hand, modestly asking for your help and basically pretending that I was glad you opposed, ostensibly because it gave me a chance to "learn". To do otherwise was burning any chance at ever passing an RfA, at least in that day's RfA climate where you wielded more clout than you do now. I played the game. Wisdom has a crazy choice now - rebuke what I say here (and I know he knows its true), and save any chance at passing RfA #4. Agree with me, and bury any future RfAs. People like Malleus don't play the game, and they'll never be admins. I can't stand Malleus, but I'd vote strong support for him in a second because he knows all this RfA crap is complete bullshit. Tan   &#124;   39  04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. And because RfA regulars are required to sit on their opinionated laurels lest they be vehemently/vindictively opposed for their past !votes, I have made the decision to eschew any future participation at RfA. I'm flattered that so many people feel that I wield swing votes, but the truth of the matter is my criteria is relatively simple and straightforward. So, anyway, you will not be seeing Wisdom89 any longer at RfA, or even its eminent talk page.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I really need to be blunt here for a moment: I have absolutely no desire to be inculcated by Ryan, or anybody for that matter. I am fully capable of being an administrator if granted the opportunity. I can stand on my own two feet without some admin veteran holding my hand through certain situations.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need it either (as I said in my support, I thought you were on the 'crat track myself.) I just think you and Tan have looked at the negatives with Ryan's post above. I'm sure he came here in good faith, in an attempt to build bridges, with a sincere offer to do what he thought was the right thing.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be perfectly clear, I am absolutely sure Ryan came here in good faith. It's a nice gesture, he's a great editor. However, I've already said my piece on the matter - I took exception to a part of the oppose. I don't hold grudges though, so there's nothing personal here whatsoever.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "I can't stand Malleus ...". I'm gutted! At least Tan is honest about he managed to get through RfA #2 though. You just have to jump through whatever hoops are put in front of you and bite your tongue until it's over. Then you can say or do pretty whatever you like. Including that you don't like me. :lol: You know as well as I do Wisdom that if you'd accepted Ryan's offer your next RfA would have been pretty much nodded through. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least I said I'd still !support though :-) Tan   &#124;   39  16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You did, although that's a pretty easy promise to make as you know I'll never stand again. I do appreciate the thought nevertheless. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldnt have..
... withdrawn your RFA... WP needed sensible admins like you.. I felt it would have succeeded had you not withdrawn so early.. Anyways Best wishes again --  Tinu  Cherian  - 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Do you have plans to reconsider adminship in the future? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this exact moment, I can't even conceive of it, but only time will tell. I still feel that my experience in the project space would be a net benefit to Wikipedia - and that's the most important factor. However, I'm realizing that RfA is more brutal than I once thought. Once editors start accusing me of assuming too much good faith at UAA (the most bitey area we have), alleging that I don't actually have a FA and GA under my belt, and that I only participate/vote at RfA because I want to be an admin, I start to lose faith.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, no one went to the RfA "alleging" that you "don't actually have a FA and GA." You obviously contributed to the upkeep of both articles. The concern I raised was that you claimed you were "quite instrumental" in achieving those honours.  My review of the two articles prior to their respective awards determined that the overwhelming majority of your input centered on edit reversions and minor copy editing.  I did not see that level of input as meeting the definition of "quite instrumental."  I never said you "don't actually have a FA and GA" and to claim that is not correct. I know all too well what it is like to be maliciously libeled in an RfA, so the very last thing I am going to do is bear false witness against a fellow editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always found the willy-waving about who should or shouldn't get the credit for an FA/GA to be incomprehensible. Who cares? I blame the RfA culture that demands supplicants to have produced substantial content work, so many of them simply fake it for few months before their RfAs. Not saying that's the case here of course, but it's a charge that could probably be equally laid against a great many current administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MF, you raise an excellent point - it's the denizens of RfA who came up with the demand and high expectation that applicants should have substantial article work under their belt. I used article content once or twice as a criteria in my decisions, so I won't speak ill of those who have such magnanimous expectations. To Eco, I realize that you did not say verbatim that I did not have a FA or GA to my name - no, you just phrased it in a different way. You can split hairs all you want, but at the end of the day that's essentially what you meant. Listen, I don't bear any ill will towards those who opposed, but if anybody wants to check my article contributions (especially for Rush or Neil Peart), find User:BorgHunter and User:Giggy, or just pinpoint two barnstars in particular on my user page. No, I'm not bragging, but just so there is no further confusion. I am quite proud of both of those articles and I still maintain them today with diligence, along with the editors who I collaborated with.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wisdom, if you only participate in RfA's because you want to be an admin, then you are blowing it completely. First, I personally NEVER want to see my coachees participate there... I think participating at RfA actually hurts a candidates chances... although I don't tell them that.  Second, and more importantly, if that were your goal, then you should support EVERY candidate without consideration... don't use discretion and support everybody... don't make enemies, blindly support everybody!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BM, I sincerely hope you were either being sarcastic or simply misread what I written above. The reason I participate in RfA so heavily is because I think every candidate should be vetted. If I knew such participation would have earned me a stigma, I wouldn't have bothered : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * of course i was being sarcastic ;=)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC) FOLLOW-UP (I had a baby in the arm and couldn't type), but of course I was being sarcastic... if you were trying to ingratiate yourself with the RfA community, you wouldn't have been as visible. You shared what you thought and gave actual opinions... there are others who come to RfA, participate there for a month or two (almost always going along with consensus or supporting) and then run for RfA.  You give honest educated appraisals, which is why when I see your !vote, it means something.  I don't always agree with your conclusions, but if you support I'm more likely to see myself supporting.  If your goal was to use RfA participation as a stepping stone, then you did it all wrong.  You did it because you wanted to participate constructively... to me that is absolutely clear and anybody who assumes otherwise, underestimates your intelligence.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And then people will oppose him for being terminally obsequious! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that in English? obsequiouus????--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and now I plan to become a full time sycophant.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * obsequious??? sycophant??? Man, am I going to have to get a dictionary to read Wisdom's talk page ;-) --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stick around...we can increase your perspicacity level in five trenchant lessons. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the words of my son's favorite philosopher, "huh?"--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really depressing how people opposed you for "too much good faith" in an area that desperately needs more of it. I wish I had seen your RfA in time to support it while it was still up, and I'm sorry about how it turned out.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe your RFA failed. You shouldn't have withdrawn your RFA. I made my first edit at 05:51, 30 August 2008, and I'm beginning to realize that RFA is very political. If you ever run for adminship, I'll support you. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have too
Just so you know, I would have too.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you would have supported yourself : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whew, I was afraid Balloonman was feeling conflicted. Useight (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Really sad that your RFA you had to withdraw through and you along with User:TenPoundHammer have been really very unlucky not to be an Admin.But you like him have been undetered and your commitment has not gone down a bit even after the RFA .I have seen one wikipedian who took 15 hours for one edit and sadly left after on the wire closure. Sadly this Wikipedian who used to work for 15 hours for one edit sadly is not around and his drawing where truly outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion...
...regarding a potential RfA candidate is solicited at my talk page. Thanks! Frank |  talk  08:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

NW's RfA
Wisdom, I have to say that I was extremely disappointed to see your !vote in NW RfA. I expect to see those types of !votes from the high school wannabe crowd. From people I don't respect, I was truly shocked (and disappointed) to see it from you. You are too well respected on WP and at the RfA boards to make that type of juvenille !vote.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry I disappointed you BM, but I'm honestly not going to apologize for the comment itself. It wasn't intended to be juvenile, rather just a pointed way of indicating that I think the candidate's content work was fine and that the individual opposing was unnecessarily harsh and nitpicky.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment has been struck.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree. Were you "truly shocked", BM? As in, mouth agape, goosebumps, "there's no way in HELL he did that?!" sort of thing? I don't think so. You might not like the way Wisdom expressed it, but c'mon, "high school wannabe"? Don't make mountains out of molehills. Tan   &#124;   39  23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "per oppose" vote, is IMO one of the more juvenille support reasons around. If you want to say that you think the candidate is a net positive, or that the oppose reasons don't convince you, or that you disagree with an oppose, or even that you looked at the same evidence provided by an opposer but reached a different conclusion, I can live with those.  But the "per opposer" !vote is saying, "I have so little respect for the person opposing, that I am going to oppose per that person."  I expect it from the people who haven't been at RfA for a while or whom I have a lower opinion of, it shocks me with Wisdom because I hold Wisdom in high regard... I do see Wisdom as a future Crat... the question is how long will it take for the rest of the community to see it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BM, I see where you're coming from, and your opinion is duly noted. Honestly. However, all I can say now is that the comment is struck and there is nothing else that needs to be said on this issue. I consider it minor and not worthy of further discussion. Could I have said it differently? Absolutely. I made my point. What you say is true though - such a comment is a reflection of low respect for the opposer in question. Lastly, I'm flattered that you think so highly of me that you foresee cratship in my future, really I am, but that just ain't gonna happen.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, everyone, please chill. I didn't take offense.  I actually found the comment very funny and laughed out loud when I read it.  If Wisdom wants to crack jokes at my expense, he can go for it. This is what I think about it all:

Ok, try this one: Knock knock. Who's there? Eco. Eco who? Eco who...eco who...eco who.... Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More jokes of that caliber and I'll take my barnstar back and give it to Tan. LOL! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

nctech
HEY WISDOM!!...I REALLY could use your help (this is nc_tech3) I have scanned my Montserrate Island eruption pics of 1995 from 35mm film to scanned jpg pics FINALY! Now, I would like to add about 7 pictures to the "Montserrate" page that already exists. I left you a thread on Soundchain...Thanks!!!

Santa got pulled over on the L.I.E., so he asked me to drop this off...


Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year!
Dear Wisdom89,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It must take a saint for you to !vote yes on an RfA these days. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  01:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm just not playing the ingratiating game anymore. Malleus has rubbed off on me. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line between being honest and being spiteful. Jussayin'. Tan   &#124;   39  01:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan is playing a dangerous game here, apparently accusing me of being "spiteful". Just saying. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you at all, actually. I didn't mean for this to become an issue; carry on without me. Tan   &#124;   39  01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You back off from me and I'll try to forget that you ever existed. Until then ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Spiteful? Bite your tongue, Tan. I can't help it if the last round of candidates had oppose-worthy stigmas. Thanks.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy, you two are a bitter pair now, aren't you? Too bad. See ya. Tan  &#124;   39  02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan, what do you expect? You might have come here in good spirits, and I responded in kind - yet you insinuate that I am somehow being spiteful because you noticed a recent flurry of opposes.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What little respect I had left for Tan disappeared when I saw this. Obviously the only thing worth doing on wikipedia is to poke fun at those who actually do the work. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright. I was going to let you two have your fun, but it's getting ridiculous. Malleus, you misinterpret basically everything I say - if you're going to have no respect for me, at least pick one of the many valid reasons to do it. That comment to PeterSymonds? It was sarcastic. I thought that the statement was phrased in a way to make it clear that I consider content work to be the most important part of editing Wikipedia. You seem to spin anything I say in conversations in a way to make you hate me more. If you want to hate me, fine - I don't really give a fuck - but at least have the common courtesy to come up with a real reason.
 * You know what my real reason is Tan. It's your dishonesty. If you need a few diffs to remind you about the really, really good thing about being an admin, and about how you laid low and pretended to be something other than what you are in preparation for your RfA, then I'll find them for you; that is unless you've deleted them by now, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Of course I didn't delete them; I'm goddamn proud of them. It was fun to tell Balloonman that I wasn't so noobish as I was pretending to be. I successfully played the RfA game. I dunno how this is dishonesty; I don't seem to recall lying about anything. Well, if not telling someone to go to hell when you really want to tell them to go to hell is dishonesty, I guess I'm guilty. If I went through every day telling people exactly what I thought, I'd have been murdered many years ago. I don't think I abuse the admin tools; I don't think I am a bad Wikipedian. Pretty much, you don't like an editor on an encyclopedia project because... well, because you're pissed at the way they circumvented some opposes. At any rate, this is a much better reason not to like me. Cheers. Tan   &#124;   39  02:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's a fair point, although they weren't the exchanges I had in mind. I was thinking more of your "fairy" comment. But yes, you're right. Although you successfully gamed the system, I've not seen you do anything subsequently to give me any cause for concern. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, right - I know what you're talking about. Where I said something along the lines of, "once you're an admin, you don't have to act like a goddamn fairy anymore". I totally stand by this comment too; I think it's gospel. I'm not the most civil guy in the bunch; I like to say fuck and I like to be irreverent and I like to call a spade a spade. However, when yer going in for a job interview, you don't say fuck, you don't be irreverent, and you tactfully don't mention that the interviewer is a fucking retard. Actually, I would have thought you agree with this statement. If you don't, I suppose it's a valid reason not to like me - I certainly can't change it; I believe it. Tan   &#124;   39  03:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have a job interview on Monday. I could use that opportunity to experiment with Tan's view, but I'm fearful of perpetual unemployment.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But wait - my view was how to pass the interview. Don't call him a fucking retard. Tan   &#124;   39  03:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you're right again, I agree that it's likely to be good policy at a job interview to avoid calling your interviewer a fucking retard. Where the analogy breaks down though is in the preparation of the ground, by pretending to be someone you are not for a few months before or after the interview. Having said all that though, I suspect that you and I have far more in common than either of us would be prepared to admit. Perhaps why we're so prickly with each other. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. A few things (and sorry, Wisdom, for using your page as a coming-to-Jesus sort of forum) to say. If you review the history, I ran for my first RfA without any of the gaming-the-system crap. I was just myself; perhaps a bit more on my good behavior than normal, but I think that's just good commmon sense. It was after I got hit by opposes by clout-wielding editors that I had to "game the system" to pass #2. Of course, we throw around "game the system" like I found some loophole - I didn't manage to hide my sex offender status from the CIA human resources department. What I did was passively allow them to "mentor" me while I bided my time for the next RfA. Crafty? Yes. Dishonest? Well, I certainly don't think so. And during that time period, I certainly couldn't tell people they were fucking retards (the choice of insult for the night) if I wanted to avoid civility opposes. The bottom line is, it's just the way it works, and I worked it. I do my best to uphold Wikipedia's core policies, I help out at AIV and RFPP, I chime in at ANI, and I do a bit of content work when I feel up to it. I don't consider myself a mistake admin. I simply avoided all the bullshit opposes. Secondly, regarding our prickly relationship - I think it all started when I compared you to a Stephen King character who is prickly himself. I didn't mean to insult you by doing this; I consider myself to resemble this character, also. I have felt since then you have misinterpreted many of my attempts at levity and good-natured banter as being pissy or condescending or straight-up insulting. Besides the really obvious incidents, that was never my intention. Tan   &#124;   39  03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair comment. Had I been a little cuter myself I guess I could have been an administrator as well. Believe it or not though, I'm eternally grateful that that my RfAs bombed. All I'm interested in, and was ever interested in, is in improving the encyclopedia, not police work. Which is why I get so upset when I see you (and others) dissing the content providers. I'm not bothered about sticks-and-stones comparisons with Stephen King characters, just as I'm not bothered about wikipedia's absurd civility policy. If I think you've behaved like an arsehole then I'll tell you, just as you would tell me. Neither of us will go crying to momma, we'll just take it and bounce back. Maybe you and I need to start again? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I mean it that I have never, and would never, insult content work. That just doesn't make sense - admin work is to support content work. In a perfect wiki-society, we'd have no real reason for admins - everyone would just be content creators. So again, if yer gonna think I'm a dick, find another reason ;-) Tan   &#124;   39  04:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! I'm still smarting from your recent "languishing around in content building" remark. I offered you an olive branch, you've chosen to throw it back in my face. Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See, is this the sort of misunderstanding that has characterized this whole thing? I didn't throw any olive branch back anywhere. I answered "yes" to your question "do we need to start again?". If anything, I embraced the goddamn fucking bullshit olive branch. Now stop fucking thinking I'm slighting you and start figuring out where I'm coming from. :-) Tan   &#124;   39  04:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom, I apologize for any perceived slight. I have supported you in multiple RfAs; you know I respect you. I was merely making an observation that things might be headed in a particular direction; my mistake if I was way off base. Tan  &#124;   39  02:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tan, your opinion matters to me, which is probably why I seemed indignant. It's all good. I assure you, you're not noticing a new behavioral trend.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Kanonkas
Thank you Wisdom for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, -- Kanonkas : Talk  18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
However, I will no longer take part in any RFA discussion. The points I raise dissent from majority opinion. The discussion was brought against me after I voted oppose on User:Enigmaman. My criteria for adminship was supposed to be simple "1) Know the policies, 2) Adminship is not a trophy, 3) Do not incite or prolong drama," but my votes against enough veterans has brought their friends to seek judgment against me.

I can help vote adminsitrators in, but I can't help vote them out. I do not want to ever be even partially responsible for giving someone like Ecoleetage the tools. I cannot vote in RFA anymore as the threats and harassment have gotten to be too much. Hopefully they will forget about me and not attempt to have me indefinitely blocked, as there are articles I need to expand. Please archive the discussion on the RFA talk page, as I have already left notice that I will not bother them further. I no longer want to help the Wikipedia mainspace. I just want to be left alone. Vodello (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you know?
This may sound silly, but I went to a Rush concert (Snakes and Arrows) and I bought a program right?

I was viewing pictures from the tour and I saw the Moog Taurus Pedals.

They STILL USE THEM LIVE!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for adminship... 3?
Hi Wisdom89, it's now been over half a year since my previous request for the mop, and reviewing that RfA reveals that you were one of my opposers last time round. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my current status in the Wikipedia community, and if you believe I would be ready to run for adminship again in future? Please respond wherever you feel it is most appropriate. Kind regards. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTNOW
You were quite right to correct me, Wisdom. Sorry, it was a mere slip off the mind. Best, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob - I've done it myself, so it's no big deal really - I just didn't want the user to have that misnomer in their head. Cheers mate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Geddy Lee
Why did you remove the "tenor" link?

Geddy's CLEARLY a tenor.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed said category because there is no reference to substantiate it. Classifying a vocalist as a tenor would require support and corroboration. It's a fairly technical term. I would disagree strongly with the notion that Lee is a tenor. Tenors generally do not use falsetto.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I CAN find you references that Geddy's a Tenor singer.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then, by all means get them. That would be fantastic. Cheers mate!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure Thing wisdom.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Geddy Lee 2
Check out the additions I made.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)