User talk:Aaron Schulz/Archive4

List of sexual slurs

Hmmm. That's tricky. The debate certainly did have a whole drawerful of socks in it, at a rough pure-numbers count it's about 10d-5k which is about on the knuckle. Some explication from the closer would have helped. Given the passage of time, and the continued editing of the article, I don't think we can invoke G4 and speedy it, not least as it would seem very retroactive. I guess that leaves 3 options: be brutally WP:BOLD and redirect it, citing in your support the newer AfD, WP:V and the fairly stable state of the target; ask for a deletion review (likely outcome: relist if you like, but nothing in particular); or write a new AfD nomination, citing very loudly the procedural problems in the previous one to avoid the "Keep, we kept last time" stuff and citing even more loudly the fact that WP:V is non-negotiable, and that almost the entire article falls well short of it, and citing the new AfD on the "slang" article as evidence of existing feeling, too. Which do you reckon? -Splash^talk 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you take the AfD route, be prepared to construct a defence relating to the use of "slur" rather than "slang"; slur is rather more specific a term, and stating that we'll never be able to keep it to fitting the title will be shot down as "then try harder". -Splash^talk 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual slang, I think you mean. Yes, ok. I'll add the redirect to my watchlist.... -Splash^talk 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Let's see how long it lasts... -Splash^talk 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unilateral and protected redirect to "Sexual Slang" is an abuse of administrator's power and possibly even vandalism. There was no discussion period or consensus. An official notice of your abuse of administrator's power/vandalism will be filed by 6pm Eastern Standard Time, If you do not reverse your unilateral actions. MonkeyHateClean 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's up with the redirect? It sounds like MonkeyHateClean is right on this (well, maybe a bit hyperbolic). I've probably never seen the list before today, but someone mentioned it on my talk page. Checking the article talk page, there does not appear to be any discussion of a redirect. There seems to have been an AfD that failed; but nothing was obviously wrong in the conduct of the AfD. Moreover, the content of Sexual slang seems to be quite a bit different than List of sexual slurs (not just in tone, but a different, albeit somewhat related, topic). Without some consensus from article editors, a redirect is absolutely inappropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting the page. I'll restore it also, if I see that again. You're welcome to AfD the page. You're welcome to propose merging. And if you can get consensus on the talk page for the redirect, I'm perfectly happy with that. But effectively deleting existing content outside process is not proper. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely wrong to link redirection to deletion. The two are not the same thing, effectively or otherwise. In fact, WP:DEL encourages such things. -Splash^talk 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They really are almost exactly the same thing in these types of cases. One page has substantial content right now that is not contained in the target page (maybe unencyclopedic content, but that's a different question). A redirect prevents casual readers from having access to the content, which is exactly what deletion is. This isn't like redirecting JQ Smith to John Q Smith because some users are likely to type the former... it's replacing one article with a quite different article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Voice of All. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. No convincing was necessary this time. ;) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

In my opinion a merge is a very good idea as both pages are similar anyway. You could list it on some page or add templates to it for five days and see what happens: alternatively you could just be bold and just do it. I'll support you if anyone complains. -- Francs 2000 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS You might want to change the links in your sig to your new username.

Having been there and studied the history (sorry I was in the middle of something before) it's probably better to do it formally. Yes there appeared to be a history of using sock puppets in previous discussions but I get the sense that this could be a case where unilateral action could lead to flare-ups. -- Francs 2000

00:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I support removing all prologisms/unstable neologisms (which, now that I look at it again, turns out to be a good many of them), with verification if possible, and adding a link under "See also" in sexual slang. Though, a merge would be fine with me (my opinions are not too strong on this article). — TheKMan^talk 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs vote

You voted to cleanup, can you be more specific. Do you want to prune the list or remove it? Thanks.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the AfD subpage. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism

Hello. I'm wondering your motivation for protecting the template. Especially considering the fact that you haven't discussed your protection on the talk page, nor even put the protected page tag on the page. More concerning to me is why, if you protected the page, you did so on the version pushed by a POV troll who has 1) almost consistently refused to discuss his position, 2) when he has discussed it found almost unanimous disagreement, 3) who has been blocked for vandalizing the page previously. I'm not all implying malice but this protection seems to be off the bat, done without following the procedure for protection, not putting your protection up for discussion, and to defend someone who has been almost unamiously marked as belligerent by the community of editors on multiple pages. Cheers --FluteyFlakes88 05:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm fairly new to the ins and outs of wikipedia so I was little confused by what happened. Is all we need a consensus discussion on unprotecting the page? Also, what is the process to have him blocked from the template (and related pages)? --FluteyFlakes88 05:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can give no easy answer for blocking, if he reverts a page 4+ in a day, then contact an admin. If you really want to stop him, go to WP:RFAr and file a complaint with support diffs.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Anarchism

Hello. I'm wondering your motivation for protecting the template. Especially considering the fact that you haven't discussed your protection on the talk page, nor even put the protected page tag on the page. More concerning to me is why, if you protected the page, you did so on the version pushed by a POV troll who has 1) almost consistently refused to discuss his position, 2) when he has discussed it found almost unanimous disagreement, 3) who has been blocked for vandalizing the page previously. I'm not all implying malice but this protection seems to be off the bat, done without following the procedure for protection, not putting your protection up for discussion, and to defend someone who has been almost unamiously marked as belligerent by the community of editors on multiple pages. Cheers --FluteyFlakes88 05:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD bot change

Regarding your request a month ago... I have committed the new changes for you. I hope the new version of the list is more beneficial to you. See User:AllyUnion/AFD List. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wargh!

Be careful when closing AFDs! alot of your {{subst:ab}} tags are either typo'd or {{subst:at}}!!

Fine work otherwise though--Tznkai 12:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

Don't stress it. You're doing good things here. Friday (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Outerlimits and WP:NPA

I thought I'd ask your help as an uninvolved admin. Basically stemming out of the work that we've been doing at the proposed guideline WP:LISTS, a few editors of that have made some effort to start cleaning up List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people as a typical example of one of the "identitarian" lists that have evidentiary problems.

Unfortunately, as is not particularly unexpected, some of these identitarian lists have some rather childish existing editors: specifically ones who not just feel ownership in the list, but accuse anyone trying to improve it of various types of bigotry. For example, somewhere completely different (List of Jewish jurists), the first time I asked for names to be cited I was accused of being a follower of Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Naturally, the accusation in this context is variations on slanders of homophobia (made, to my mind, even more absurd by the fact I've actually written a fair amount in academic queer theory; but I guess that's neither here nor there).

Well, anyway, the editor Outerlimits is the worst of them, by far. It's now gotten to the point of tracking down and lying about various stuff I've written outside WP (which isn't hard to do: I have a WP article on me that's linked to from my user page; and from there to other sites is simple enough). For example: [1], [2]. It's not that I'm really concerned about the personal attacks per se, I'm not that thin-skinned. But when an editor goes to those kind of lengths, it certainly usually portends a near future of increasing disruption of the editing process, and often futher so-called "wikistalking" (though that term is slightly silly, I know).

I was thinking maybe a stern word from an admin might be able to get the user to cool his/her heals a bit. Or any other thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual slurs

I figured that most of it isn't verifiable, but I have been convinced in the past that there's utility for articles like this. Of course, it takes a lot of effort to keep them clean. But encyclopaedic content is encyclopaedic content. I'm sure there are reputable publications which document things like this. Guettarda 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Body_Part_Slang article

I am shocked why this very informative article has been deleted also at Answers.com. As a writer for Adult articles it has been a great HELP for me. I don't see anything bad with those articles... (comment by 58.69.31.185)

Protection of pedophilia

I'm not sure 2 malicious edits by the same user qualifies a need for protection; perhaps a block, but... // paroxysm (n) 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protection

Hi, I noticed that your userpage is protected, and has no recent vandalism. Protection policy says to avoid leaving these protected unneccessarily. Please leave any replies on my talk page. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bakharev

Hi and please forgive my coming by to discuss your vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev. You said in your vote that Alex was "insulting an admin". This point received some discussion later at this RfA and I would like to request that you actually look at what Alex said rather and in what context than conclude based on a hearsay (that is of course if you haven't studied the matter already).

Perhaps you agree that the features required from a good admin first of all are commitment and the highest standards of personal ethics (not to use the tools you are empowered with inappropriately)? Alex expressed the highest virtues in both the commitment and personal ethics, especially in view of an exemplary decency of how he handled certain individuals that committed to derail his Adminship and even dared to use sockpuppets for that. Besides, since Alex actually checks all new articles created at wiki (an amazing commitment) the admin tools will come very handy because he is willing to do a cleaning part of admin duties, unlike most of our admins who, usually, just remain regular editors.

I respectfully request that you give another thought to your vote. If you choose to study the nomination page to make up your mind, please study all of it so that you won't miss any issues. By no means I intend to pressure you and should you choose to keep your vote unchanged, I will not be contacting you with further pressure. --Irpen 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter

Hi there. I think somebody's posing as you. --Mr. Billion 03:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

On your userpage, you have "this user is an independent mediator" misspelled as "independant." --Mr. Billion 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:3RR

See my reply on /3rr--Tznkai 03:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Alright. I just ranted a bit at Thames's talk page, but I figured I'd say this abit more calmly. First off, I'm not actually a newbie, I'm a recent adminstrator, for the record. Second, I don't think I was revert warring, and while I was possibly edit warring, I assure you I was making a good faith effort to try to accomidate suggestions. If you look at the history and the talk page I believe Iwas making good attempts to respond to real criticisms other than "I like the old version" or "rv, it is time-tested and it works, get a life". Furthermore I have been discussing my edits on the talk page, despite thames's claims to the contrary, and I feel many of his responses reduce very much to: "No, I don't like it"

Your perspective on this would be appreciated.--Tznkai 16:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new admin bit was just to clear up any sympathy votes yo uwere giving me for being a new user. I possibly should have used talk more, but I don't think being reverted after a talk page objection with a 3 minute time gap is reasonable. As for the changes, I was improving new things as I saw them and trying to compromise on the old ones by incorperating elements of the old template. Anyway, if you don't want to be involved here, go right ahead, I am just frustrated with being accused of bad faith editing--Tznkai 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your leave a message

Link just prompted an inattentive me to create a new page? Odd.

What I said there was: You may want to review my recent actions at List of sexual slurs.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Admin coaching

Hi! I've assigned EddieSegoura to you and Kirill Lokshin, if that's ok. Just tell me if there's any problems, ok? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm it. My name is EddieSegoura and I've been trying to familiarize myself with how wiki works and I do hope to have an RfA nom by the end of April. That will be three months to teach me the thing I need to learn such as spotting vandals, and honing my edit skills -- Eddie 11:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Could you please have a look at the message I left Kirill? Cheers. NSL E _(T+C) 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I know these already:

WP:NPOV = Neutral point of view. Basically it means that everyone should be able to agree on stuff posted and edited in Wikipedia's mainspace.
WP:V = Vandalism. The act of editing pages or putting nonsense or pages. Their are many types of this vandalism, from blanking pages to adding profanity to pages to adding stuff that is patently false.
WP:NOR = No original research -- stuff posted on wikipedia needs to be verified.
WP:NPA = No personal attacks -- don't attack other users.
To create a template You need to start the page with Template:mytemplate. To use the tamplate You'd put it in {{ }}

This of course is just a start, but feel free to correct Me if I'm wrong. -- Eddie 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nude pornography

I don't understand your edit removing the photos from non-nude pornography. Your edit summary refers to them as "spam". They are not spam; they do not refer to, link to, or promote any site, product or service; they're examples, released into the public domain (see image tags). This is no different from, say, the photo of a hammer in the article hammer. (By the way, I have no connection to the photographer nor with any porn site, non-nude or otherwise.) MCB 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the copyright status of the images used in this article, Image:NonNudeExample1.jpg and Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to assert their legal status, but I will asssume they were genuinely released by the creator. My issue is that they are not needed anywhere.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by your phrase "not needed"; pretty much every article about genres of visual media, art, etc. contain illustrative examples of what is being discussed. That is a valuable feature of Wikipedia. Is your objection that the images are somehow not illustrative of the article's content (i.e., they're erroneously associated with the genre), or something else? You referred to them as "spam", but they are clearly not spam under any definition I am familiar with. It is hard to escape the conclusion that your objection is based merely on being personally offended somehow by the content. MCB 18:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam" was a poor word choice here (other sites refer to it as just "unecessarry stuff"). What do they add to the article, and why do we need two pics. I don't really care much, so I am not going to revert, but if you removed one of the pics, then I would be fine with it. I probably should have left one there the first time. Two are just redundant and clutter the page.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

All I saw was a revert being reverted again and a rather cryptic explanation. But I suggest you discuss it with the other user, although I do have doubts if a list like that is appropriate on Wikipedia. The term "triggerhappy" may be uncalled for, as the amount of vandalism sometimes doesn't leave time to thoroughly judge each edit and I have to rely on edit history, differences and explanations to come to a conclusion. Cyberevil 04:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when RoyBoy starts to revert, see his explanations on my talk, -my- eyes start to bleed. It is simply amazing. You will get one or the other wrong, which is I why I explicitly ask people to contact me when they feel I made an error. I should probably add a direct link to my talk to my username, perhaps in the form of "feel this revert was wrong?" Last thing I want to do is scare away people who simply not have the hang of it yet. Cheers, Cyberevil 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks

I'm not interested in watchlisting articles that don't belong in wikipedia anyway. Thanks for the nudge though.--MONGO 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watchlist it, but not sure about everything that is going on there. I'll do what I can. Why not just be bold and merge then redirect, or at least tag it that way...has that been discussed there?--MONGO 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

I have noticed that you recently speedy deleted several articles with the comment "vanity" or "not notable". Please note that "vanity" is not a speedy deletion criterion under WP:CSD. Even if the subject matter is non-notable, or is an autobiography, as long as it asserts notability, it has to go through an AfD, and cannot be speedied. The article Pussy City Pimps was restored after you speedied it (as "no notability at all"), and has later been deleted by an AfD (which is now disputed as well). I have just restored Louis 'Lou' Black, which clearly claims notability. If you wish to nominate it for AfD, feel free to do so. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am sure that this is a very contraversial debate, I mean with all of those keep voters ;). Lets try to keep BS off of Wikipedia.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's try to stick to policy and process on Wikipedia. I don't care about Pussy City Pimps, but you can't go around speedy deleting any article that doesn't meet your personal notability standards. That's what AfD is for. CSD is exactly for the cases described in it, not a free-for-all to save you the trouble of nominating for an AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you'd rather deal with this on an RfC, we can do that too. Otherwise, please undelete all pages that you have deleted out of process. OwenX 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is an idiotic waste of time, check my user page. No one ever listens and you have to sift through pages and pages of comments just to make a comment that will not effect anyone and is not binding. I wish listing AFD could be done automatically with a click (and a summary). Also, it would be like RfC: against half of Wikipedia admins.

Now, perhaps I could be more of a nice guy on deletion, but hundreds of articles are deleted as "vanity", all the time by admins. I'll try to use AfD more (likely I just wont give enough woodle nickles to list BS for AfD, so it will just stay there). Besides, if an admin overturns me, which admins like Splash and Tony Sideways do to other admins all the time, then so what? Big deal. Then it just goes to AfD; nobody is going to delete war over it.

Now, an easier option would be to tag with {{NOR}} or the accuracy tag, as long as those lead to a category the people actually look through.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Dunlop is clearly notable. He is a major and contravertial figure in Egyptian education and cultural independence. Be that as it may, there was sufficient assertion of notability in the article that there was no way it should have been speedied (and I'm fairly liberal in regards to speedies) - if you though this was not notable, then you clearly ought to have gone to afd. No harm done, and we all make mistakes, but please be more careful in future - 'if in doubt don't delete'. --Doc ^ask? 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you are finding this. Certainly, the page says he is notable, but it does not prove if nor is written with any coherency. Note that pages are sometimes deleted and later are recreated as actual articles, as the last one was horrid. Since you restored it, you can at least turn into a coherent, cited article now, since nothing on there is verified at all now.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'page says he is notable' thus notability is asserted, thus you don't speedy it. We can debate the rest on AfD, and I have no problem if that forum reaches a conclusion of non-notability. However, I have been able to verify all the information in the article (a quick google did that) - and I shall be re-writing it soon. You may, of course, send it to afd then if you are not convinced.--Doc ^ask? 20:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Where did you find it. I keep asking that.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding what? The notability assertion that he reformed Egyptian education system was on the article itself, the sources I found by putting 'Douglas Dunlop' and 'Egypt' into google. I've placed the best ones I could find, which are the sources for my re-write, on the reconstructed article. I will not be offended if you choose to AfD it, but I suspect it will survive. --Doc ^ask? 21:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-AFD

You can get a tool to make listing an AfD a one click process, so you just have to type the reason and press save three times. It is a javascript tool. If you tell me which skin you use, I'll add it for you, if you like. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the standard monobook. I would like such as tool. I was just getting irritate with a lot of drama, so such nice an offer is quite welcomed :). Thanks, please add it it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a hard refresh, open a page, edit it, look at the top. Enjoy! [[Sam Korn]] 21:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry about that. Slight copying error... Try again? [[Sam Korn]] 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look beside the "watch" tab. [[Sam Korn]] 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) [[Sam Korn]] 21:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Voice of All, please see the talk page of 'optical amplifiers' on why I reverted your reversion. Regards, LS

Protectors

VegaDark and Voice of All Nice to see that some people protect my user page. Thank you so much for your hard work and efforts. God bless. Travb 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again...

Under which WP:CSD category does "advertisement" fall? You have just deleted five articles using "advertisement" as your reason, despite the fact that this is not a CSD criterion. Once again: notability, vanity, advertisement – these are all valid reasons for deletion under AfD, but not as speedy-deletion.

I don't care whether you think these are good articles or not. If you are not willing to read the policy and follow our standards, I suggest you stop deleting articles. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is considered rude to remove someone's comment from your talk page without replying or archiving. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, which category of CSD did you base your deletion on? Assertion of notability is part of CSD:A7, which does not apply to companies. WP:NOT does not give you the right to speedy delete articles. If you are not willing to read WP:CSD and follow it, I will have to pursue this further. Your choice. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "stupid, unnotable ads"

Is this the best you can come up with? Tony Sidaway's "Fuck the process"? Tony's actions received massive criticism on a recent RfC, and he was forced to drop out of the ArbCom elections largely due to that. But more importantly, Tony actually read the policy, and is very familiar with it. Also please note that three of the ten articles you recently speedy deleted out of process have already been undeleted (two of them by other admins), so your personal concept of what is "BS", "vanity" or "stupid, unnotable ads" is clearly not accepted by the community.

If you still believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, we can take this to an RfC, as I proposed before. Your prompt deletion of my comments from your talk page, and turning this page into a redirect, indicate that you are not interested in discussing this or in correcting your ways. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

OK, (revert this). You made a mistake - you took some heat. You recognised your mistake. It really is not big deal. You are a good admin, and a good editor. Don't blow a fuse. --Doc ^ask? 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told Owen that I would be more lenient long before this pile-on. The one thing that actually regret was using the word "BS", and I apologized. But that was not enough. Clearly, then, I am not a good admin. The redirect should stay :/.

I'll not revert you on your own userpage. I can't speak for Owen, but I was more concerned for content than process and the inevitable errors admins make. How many articles have you deleted, how few mistakes have you made? Probably a lot, and not many. The trick is to take criticism, even if it is harsh and somewhat unfair, learn from the bits you agree with, shrug off the rest. But frankly, if you are going to hang around here, you'd better get used to it. Becasue, the only way of avoiding it is not to use the tools - and then wikipedia is certainly the looser. You are a good admin - and if you can take and learn from criticism then you'll be an even better one. If some comments have been OTT, then sod them. Now, come back and stop sulking! --Doc ^ask? 23:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't mind unharsh criticism (rarely at least). Looking at Owen's first comments to me, they were pretty soft in tone, so I should not have responded by snapping with "lets keep the BS off Wikipedia". Then he became heavy-handed and dramatic, more than I was, by posting that WP:AN/I comment, which was out of context.

I usually take criticism, and I don't mind when people like Splash unprotected pages I protected or Tony Sideways re-adds an image I removed, or when Fellocity request that I not block soo long (I was giving week blocks one day). I noticed that one admin accidently reverted an edit of mine while reverting vandals from the recent IP edits page. I told him not to revert too fast and he explained that eventually you make mistakes while doing RC vandal patrol. We had no hard feelings. It is just that when it comes to AfD, I am automatically, already pissed, if you know what I mean. If you don't, check out my user page (and no it is not another redirece, still pretty as ever :)...).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

I don't care if the oppose votes by User:Masssiveego have a zero net effect. I don't like trolls and will do all I can do protest that kind of behavior. Condoning such behavior serves no purpose other than to incite others to act the same.--MONGO 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice....look closely at the diffs I posted on bd's talk page...look at both candidates and the votes by the troll.....[3]...also, why does your talk link direct to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great?--MONGO 08:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you can unprotect my talk page? Kingjeff 04:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing talk page guideline and no attack policy

Thanks for doing the edits on the NLP page. I would be grateful if you consider archiving or removing all messages that do not conform to the Wikipedia talk page guidelines (esp personal attacks) rather than replying to those messages. Personal attacks can escalate very quickly and can poison the co-operative environment rendering all forms of mediation ineffective. Thank you. --Dejakitty 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Why thank you! [[Sam Korn]] 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace

I think your best bet is Computer Engineering, as that offers the most job opportunities. The more specialized fields, such as Aeronautical Engineering have a very limited market, and during downturns in the industry many good engineers lose their job, and have to take entry-level mechanical design and drafting positions. My own background is software, although most of my department are Electrical Engineers. If you enjoy debugging Javascripts, you'd probably do great in Comp. Eng. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IAR and WP:BOLD

Where do you usually draw the line when it comes to WP:IAR and WP:BOLD? I see a lot stuff get through under those grounds.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read WP:IAR is this: In those cases where following the rules makes no sense and defeats our main purpose here, use your head. This is not the same as "Ignore Consensus"; it relates to unique situations that haven't been brought up before or where no clear consensus was reached. WP:BOLD, on the other hand, only relates to editing articles, and has nothing to do with following policy, although people often misunderstand it. I believe Jimbo came up with WP:IAR to avoid scaring off inexperienced editors who are overwhelmed by all the rules. As admins, we don't have that excuse; we're supposed to be familiar and comfortable with policy and guidelines. That's part of our job here! And if a rule doesn't make sense, get it changed; after all, this is a wiki!

Yes, I also see people use WP:IAR very liberally, and in most cases cause more harm and aggravation than good. You must have heard about Ed Poor, one of the first and most respected Wikipedians. He was recently desysoped after a chain of "bold" actions and ignoring rules and consensus (I'm simplifying a bit). What kind of things do you see done under WP:IAR? If this involves deleting articles without consensus and that do not specifically meet CSD, you should ask the deleting admin for an explanation. We like to think that any deletion can be undone, but this isn't entirely true: a new editor who sees his article get deleted without an explanation will probably leave. The article may be crap, but that editor could have learned what meets our standards, and become a valuable contributor. I'd rather see 100 crap articles kept than see one good article get deleted or one good editor leave. Crap articles eventually are improved, and if they aren't, they can always be deleted later. Good editors who are chased away rarely come back.

Regarding advertising, I hate it at least as much as you do. I fought several serious battles here against companies that were trying to use Wikipedia for advertising. In the end, making them go through the AfD process was the best thing to do, since it made them realize that it's not just about one stubborn admin who doesn't want them here. It's that the whole community doesn't tolerate this kind of material here. This is also why I took part in writing WP:CORP, the notability standard for companies and organizations. Again, these are AfD criteria, not CSD... :)

I used to make mistakes too as a new admin. For example, I thought that an article that was previously speedied and then recreated can be speedied again under CSD:G4. It was pointed out to me that this is not the case; while the rule isn't clear, most of the community believes CSD:G4 only applies to pages deleted via an AfD. This makes sense; otherwise, if one admin improperly deletes an article, anyone after him can delete it again under G4, which wasn't the intention. I did some mistakes in other areas too; in all cases, another admin was kind enough to explain my mistake to me. I listened, learned, and today I'm a better admin. Owen× ☎ 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Voice of All

I haven't heard from You in the past day, are You taking a break? -- Eddie 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to Me that You're taking a wikibreak, indeed. I'll see You in a couple of weeks . -- Eddie 14:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiBreak

File:Esperanza.Coffee.gif

Perfectly percolated coffee, Esperanza's own blend.

Have a good time off-wiki. We still love you :). --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Sick of seeing others get misrepresented with unfair accusations in RfAs.

Ummm.... these are really old and vindictive grudges among Grue, Starblind, CJK, and Bratsche. I do confess most of the others oppose votes surprise me, and I should probably try to take a lesson from them. But c'mon "doesn't know how to use preview?!"

What concern do you have? And is there something I could do to answer it? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still on wikibreak?

I have no dobts that Lulu will be a decent admin. 5 months ago, I might have felt otherwise, but I see nothing since to indicate that he would ause admin tools or push a point of view just because he has these new and awesome powers. He actually is a somebody in real life, unlike me, so I think we should be glad to have someone around that has an opinion and the facts to back it up...happy editing.--MONGO 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm what are you doing?

If you edit the eastern front back to Ksenon old edits you also add all of his misstakes, he delibratley removes facts about induitrial output and also removes nummbers from casulties

I have looked up all the nummbers and have stated multipel sources for all of them

All my facts are take directly out from books written either by institutions or professors in history

If you choose to edit any nummbers then please list sources that give diffrent nummbers

If you remove the part that Sweden did not produce 2/3 of all iron ore used by the axis the please state so

If you remove the fact that the Axis forces used slave labour from the conqured nations the please state your sources that they didnt use slave labour If you remove the part that allied convies only really kicked in in 1943 the place state your sources that major deliveries were made before 1943

Prof James Overy book Russia's war states that only 5% of all vehicles

If you remove the fact that 2 million Soviet turncoats died then please state so what Ksenon did was remove that nummber and replace it with 215 which he just pulled out of thin air, as i clearly state i the sources part i got my nummbers from world war 2 day by day written by chris bishop and chris mcnab pages 244-249 and professors overy book russia's war page 178

AND IF YOU DENY THAT THE Holocaust HAPPNED LIKE Ksenon DOES THEN YOU DO NOT BELONG ON WIKI

Also removeing the fact that the neutrality of the article is disputed like Ksenon does is just plain wrong because the neutrality of the article is highly disputed

Deng Jan 18 2006 18.35 CET

I have liste my soruces just scroll down or if that is to hard then just read here

Russias War by Prof. Richard Overy page 178

World war II day by day written by chris bishop and chris mcnab pages 244-249

Look Ksenon removes alot he removed alot on the industrial parts if you dont disupte them then dont remove them

I thinkyou dont like my wording in theOverview Or I KNOW you dont but what Ksenone did was add the fact that the soviets reiped germans which is tru but to counter that i added the fact that the Axis rapied the Soviets but that fact he removed a patern which would countinue every day i would add 2 facts for exapmle axis production of something and the osivet production state spurces but then he would remove anything that craked the illusion that the soviet union were antz and the only reason they won which they really didnt do according to him was because they ran over with millions and millions time more tanks but when i added the exact nummbers of produced vehicles and more importantly raw materials he would remove and fiddle with the words

And removeing the fact that the Nazies used slave labour is clear POV

And by you just removeing all of my edits and saying all of his are correct goes against what you posted on your first page

A clear example is when i added my table of dead which i got from Russia's War and World war 2 day by day he would remove the 2 million soviet turncoats which si cleary stated in world war 2 day by day and replace it with his fantsy nummber of 215 and then in total he would not add the 215 he would just remove the 2 million which is just bad maths

So stop saying that his edits are correct because they clearly arent

And sweden produced 2/3 of all axis ore!

Deng Jan 18 19:40 CET

I will change the wording of the overview so that it sounds less brutal

And YES a consensus (An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole), needed to look up that word, is ofcurse needed but removeing facts like Ksenon did is not the way i will change the wording in the Overview which i am certain is the part that is bugging you nad feel free to edit the words and out the music to them as long as you do not remove facts or nummbers without first giving a source.

Deng Jan 18 19:55 CET

First of all you are not one of the two the two are ksenon and DMorpheus second of all who downgraded my ban from 31 houers to 90 min

Deng 19-01-06 19.55 CET

Just a little...something. :)

On Palestinian exodus on RfP, you had said that there had been no edits for 11 days. Well yes. It was protected. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at this for me?

I see that you made a couple of edits on Eastern Front today. I reverted Deng's changes and protected the page. I usually do not revert changes like that but to me he has the burden of proof here. I added to his request for unprotection here. If you disagree with what I did, reverse it. No ill will. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theodore7

Could you look over User:Theodore7's request for comment and his contributions? Do you think this warrants an outright block or should we go through the entier mediation/arbitration process. If so, how old are you and would you be willing to mediate? Cheers, —Ruud 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Hi there, I noticed you unprotected Anarchism but did not update the list of [pages]. Would you kindly do so in the future. novacatz 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]