User talk:Friday - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 13 December 2006 (RFC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:57, 13 December 2006 by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) (RFC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Note: If you want to email me, the link does work, but it's generally going to be better to contact me here. I'll probably see it faster, and even if I don't (or if I'm away for a few days), perhaps someone else can deal with the issue.

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

The block

I saw it as offensive and there was an error with the block reason. Betacommand 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your redirecting

I just happened to trip up on the rest of the Phillippine Idol people that you redirected. Could you please reverse those, as it's only one click for you and there's really no working consensus for such a move anyway? I'll likely reverse it anyway and stub them if you don't, but this wasn't the right move. I'm trying to get a discussion going at WP:BIO, so perhaps your input would be useful there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We already had this discussion, didn't we? I realize that you don't believe in having notability standards for articles, but this is a fringe view at best. I see no evidence that there is consensus for you reverting the redirects. I won't edit war over it of course, but I'm not inclined to undo what I did- I made those edits because IMO they're an improvement. Why would I undo an improvement? Friday (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, if there's a way to try to come up with some consensus on this, I'm all ears. I must admit I find your arguments on Talk:Jeli Mateo uncompelling. I see little hope of us coming to any kind of agreement on this - I think we've had this same discussion several times. The best I can figure out is that you think a larger number of articles is always better, whereas I think such minor details are better covered by a sentence in a larger article than an entire article all their own. Friday (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Destin

Hi there; in deleting that article by User:Sugarwood, did you happen to see any comments by User:Destin? He, with I am sure the best of intentions, has sent Sugarwood a {{test4}} and a {{test5}} message, which of course he is not competent to do. Granted that Sugarwood may well need blocking, if non-admins tell vandals that they have been blocked this undermines the whole wiki structure. I have left Destin a message, but I am not yet an admin. You are. Would you like to review the correspondence and take whatever action you think is reasonable?--Anthony.bradbury 18:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think replacing those messages with a "you've been blocked" seems appropriate. Friday (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Clare Youth Theatre

You were questioning the article`s notability. I believe an article is required as it an Irish Theatre group and contributes to Irish Theatre in general. Exiledone 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So every theater group in Ireland is encyclopedic? Wow. Are there sources that claim this is significant? Friday (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I added some newspaper articles under "References" to establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer

I disagree with the following removal in part:

   * Oh, to hell with Family Guy. That crappy show has polluted trivia lists all over this so-called encyclopedia with its useless non-sequiturs. Seth MacFarlane isn't exactly the arbiter of anything but bad taste and bad entertainment. He's no Mario Pei or William Safire. Guglielmo Clintone 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's written in a belligerent way, but I think the guy's partially right even if I like Mario Pei and don't like Bill Safire. Being in Family Guy doesn't make something worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. This isn't the Family Guy Wikia, is it? Mr Spunky Toffee 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Family Guy references are not notable. Rklawton 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely won't object if anyone wants to put that back- I understand that removing people's comments is controversial at best. I just hate to see things get off-topic like that. Friday (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Anthony Minnuto

Regarding Anthony Minnuto, I see you used the template, but did not protect the page. -- ReyBrujo 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I protected it now. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy amuses me.

Look at your userpage. It has webhost written all over it. If i had to lose mine, which i might add, was of religious value to me, then you must certainly have to remove yours. Take a look at User Guinnog for example. This also has webhost written all over it. I put it to you, you elitist, authoritarian administrator, that your userpage is not in line with the goals of wikipedia.

What do i have to do to become an admin? I'm told I'd be a great addition to 'the team'.

Many Spanks...sorry...thanks, (Percy Nobby Norton got to the keyboard again).. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentbob4477 (talk • contribs) .

Nearly everything on my user page relates to the editing I do here. Yours relates to some story you made up. Friday (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Copy of Deleted Article

Hey buddy,

I ran across your name on the list of administrators willing to look up content for deleted articles, and was wondering if you could do just that for me. The article I'm interested in working on is General Mayhem. There's some issue with the sources right now and it's currently up in Deletion Review. A clean copy of the article before its deletion would greatly assist in doing this.

If you're willing, the place I'd like the article deposited is User:Lantoka/Sandbox2. Thanks in advance! —Lantoka 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me access to the article. I went ahead and made a copy of the code for the last good version, so that I can work on sourcing it. You can go ahead and put it back where it belongs now. Thank you! —Lantoka 04:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure how you executed the move/copy of the article to my userspace, but whatever your method, the page at User:Lantoka/gm is protected from editing. If it was a move you can go ahead and move it back, redelete, etc. If you copied it you can go ahead and unprotect it and tag it with a speedy delete tag. Thanks again! —Lantoka 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could provide a copy of RuneScape economy...

I didn't bother to get a copy before deletion, so now it's hard to determine what parts should be merged with the main article. User:Amarkov/Runescape economy is a good place to put it. Thanks. -Amarkov _edits 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clare Youth Theatre

Why have you nominated the article for deletion. TruthbringerToronto has cited a good deal of references. Also it is part of the Irish theatre culture. Exiledone 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that we don't want to be in the business of promoting local groups like this. But, really, that's a matter for the Afd. For what it's worth, you might want to look at WP:CSD, specifically the bit article-7 which says Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. This theater group article would have been a valid speedy, in the opinion of some people who have commented on the Afd. Most editors strongly feel that the mere existence of a thing does not automatically mean we should have an encyclopedia article about that thing. Where to draw that line, is of course a tricky question. Friday (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Point. Exiledone 23:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most editors strongly feel that the mere existence of a thing does not automatically mean we should have an encyclopedia article about that thing."

Most editors are wrong.Djgranados

my username

there are plenty of people here with a POV - that I openly espouse mine when not editing under AOL - doesn't change anything. Please review my edits for thier content - I think you will see that I edit neutrally while making sure a POV that I think should be represented is not missing or defamed.

Also - there have been no chunks of text edited - and the editor using vandal warnings to try and intimidate me, thinking I am new is exactly why I usually avoid the whole username thing. Abeo Paliurus 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS thanks for realizing I didn't remove your comment intentionally - I will leave the other editors accusations as templates. Abeo Paliurus 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that - I thought I was on the clothing page - I'm not used to having so many windows open at once - Abeo Paliurus 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Statisticulation

It's a slang word for a common practice. How about merged and redirect to Darrell Huff's best-selling statistics "primer for laymen", How to Lie with Statistics ? --Uncle Ed 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Might be a good idea but we'd get more input kicking around ideas on the article talk page, eh? Friday (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably 3.5 times as many ideas ... ;-) See ya there! --Uncle Ed 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Help Help please

I am being attacked by User:Abu badali, who doesn't like the position I've taken on promotional images and is engaged in a wholesale attack on every image I've uploaded to Misplaced Pages using any criteria possible. If you can assist in opening an Rfc on this, as I have never done one, I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you. Tvccs 06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, this looks like a content dispute. I'm no expert on images or copyright law, but I know there's been a big push to ensure that Misplaced Pages is using free content. Sounds like you're taking this a bit personally, which probably isn't helpful. Maybe Abu badali was out of line somewhere, I don't know, but you're saying things like "get a life" and referring to this as harassment- that's not very polite either. I don't know that an RFC is useful as a next step, but as I said I don't know much about this situation at all. Calmly talking about things on users talk pages generally works tho. If he has made harassing comments to you, provide diffs and I'll take a look. It's likely he's just doing what he thinks is best for the project, though. Friday (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia

No bad faith?? I am not sure we are reading the same page. the nom is clearly uncivil and the biased. I am not the only admin who agrees. I am keeping the page and having the writers clean-up the OR. I was thinking of warning the nom with {{civil}} but i don't think it merits that. And how can you call 17 references OR? Betacommand 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The nom and many of the delete !votes were by established editors with a history of useful contributions. Are you really accusing all these people of bad faith? I really think you need to unclose this- what you've done here is just begging for it to go to DRV, where I'm confident the consensus will be that the early closure was a bad idea. I glanced thru the references and many of them are other Misplaced Pages articles and some fanboy blog- these are not proper sources. Friday (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that the nom was bad faith. Yes there is some OR what is wrong with citing wikipedia? as for the other refs yes one or two might be bad. but the grounds for this AfD are infounded. just because they !voted doesnt validate the nom. Betacommand 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I think a re-write is needed not a delete

I guess it's moot now- the closure has already been reverted. Friday (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Beta and Chris seem to be revert warring now over the closure. It doesn't technically involve admin actions but it seems like a wheel-war for all purposes. Why do these happen over the most trivial subjects? I've never seen this sort of thing happen for even an Israeli-Palestinian conflict article but for StarTrek and such we have multiple admins wasting their time. JoshuaZ 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It has now been un-closed thrice (once not by me too - I'm impressed). If this continues, I might do to DRV, but not before paying a visit to WP:AN. Chris cheese whine 17:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Beccaboo 06

Thanks for blocking her indefinitely (though I do have some suspicion that one of my friends from Cary, North Carolina, Shayna Whelan, may have something to do with the vandalism). Now all we have to do is find the IP responsible. Much appreciated -- --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a way to apply social pressure to stop this, please do- it's likely to be more effective than technical means. Thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would basically try to study their ways on Misplaced Pages, and as soon as they make a move, place a warning on their Talkpage and if you haven't already--revert the vandalism. If it gets out of hand, calmly talk to them on their Talkpage (and give a final warning). Three times and just report them to WP:AIV. The blocking admin should take everything from there. I also see you're an administrator. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Temple garment

Your comment on my page was interesting. I happen to disagree with you. When you go out of your way to make a comment to someone with whom you disagree, me for example, and you so blatantly overlook complete stupidity of those with whom you agree leads me to think you might not be the best judge in this situation. For Misplaced Pages to succeed and for individual editors to excel, one must be able to work with those who disagree with our particular viewpoint. One must come to an understanding of what is appropriate and what is not.

Your ignoring Duke53's comment of calling a vagina a pussy and stating that we all just need to live with it is a prime example of your lack of judgement. Instead of leaving a comment on his talk page (a person who agrees with you position), you chose to leave a comment on my page and calling my comments "crap". I guess the old adage of beauty being in the eye of the beholder is apropos in this instance. I encourage you to relect on your actions, come to understand that to judge others is fine, but learn to judge from a principaled position and not just those with whom you disagree. In doing so, you will have learned wisdom and fairness. Others might even come to respect you as a fellow editor.

In closing, I will continue to edit those articles that are of interest to me and where I can offer the most expertise. This article is one of them. Cheeers. Storm Rider 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize calling someone's edit "crap" is pretty harsh- I don't often do things like that. I just think we should stay on topic and judge each suggestion by its own merits, not by the "stupidity" that we percieve in other editors. My criticism of your essay was not meant as an endorsement of anyone else's edits- it was meant just as criticism of your essay. It's out of place here because it's unhelpful to improving the article. Talk pages are for discussing the article. FWIW, I believe I complained at Duke53 about his editing behavior a week or so ago. I even think several other people have complained at him too. Friday (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My initial objective was to add humor to the conversation. In reality, whether the picture is included or not is of little interest to me. The more I have thought about it, the more the current status works. I was also poking the supportive group in the eye becuase there was really no reason other than "we want it that way"; no legitimate reason was ever given. I think it was time for those against the photo to move on and I still do. This should not be a major issue.

Duke53's methods are contentious and appear to always have been. If he is on a page he is contending with others; that is a fact that is easily recognizable by reviewing his edits. He is not an easy person with whom to work.

As an aside, I did jump to a conclusion that one of the reasons you deleted the section was because of Duke introducing colorful language like pussy and then stating that it was appropriate and acceptable editing. It may be acceptable, but I strongly disapprove of it. I am serious about my comments on decency; it should not be a forgein concept on WIKI and not be shunted aside in favor of mindless fear of censorship. I am not sure we will see eye-to-eye on things, but I do hope we can work together again. Storm Rider 00:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref desk cleanup

As a user who has expressed interest in dealing with misuse of the reference desk, you may be interested in my comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Where we stand and my new strategy for dealing with the problem at User:SCZenz/Reference desk comments. I note you already did this with a comment on StuRat's page, in fact, and I hope you'll help out similarly in the future. It will take assistance from many people in order to make it clear which behaviors aren't appropriate. -- SCZenz 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, your approach seems very reasonable to me. I'll look thru the talk page section too- it does look like we may have trouble with an editor or two who refuse to "get it". The RD is not article space, but it is part of the project so certain norms need to apply there too. If we get cut down on the useless answers, irrelevant conversation, and personal opinion this will go a long way. I'm still not convinced the RD is a net gain for the project, but as long as we have it, we may as well make sure it doesn't suck. Friday (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Really?

I'm wondering why you didn't oppose all the other arbcom candidates that use IRC, some much much, more than Kylu. Is it because you don't actually know what you are talking about? pschemp | talk 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I reserve the right to not know what I'm talking about. However in this case there was a particular incident I recall that left a bad taste in my mouth about that editor. I have some strong reservations about the over-use of IRC- it's not transparent, and transparency is helpful. Friday (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you do reserve that right. Do you think it is fair that candidates who actually do over-use IRC are not being opposed for that because Giano doesn't know it and isn't there making complaints every day? pschemp | talk 04:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea what situation you're referring to. There may well be other candidates who I'd think the same thing about, but since I don't know anything about them I likely won't vote on them. Friday (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't? You don't remember that that "particular incident I recall" was Giano's complaint about a total of 2 lines exchanged on IRC? Interesting. Also interesting that you would characterise that as "over-use". Well, enjoy the IRC over-users we're electing then. I'm only asking you these questions because I respect you as an editor and I'm floored that people would vote based on an incident they weren't present for, and that has been misrepresented by an editor with an obvious chip on his shoulder (who also wasn't present). I happened to be there so I know the truth. Btw, good job dealing with LightCurrent. Sadly he's run out the patience of many an admin. pschemp | talk 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What I do recall was Kylu herself saying she'd consulted people on IRC, not someone else claiming she'd done it. It's possible that I am reading too much into one little remark, but I recalled her name as someone who's judgment I wasn't comfortable with. Many of the names in the election are unfamiliar to me- hers wasn't. I really dislike the tendency I see here for people to "take sides" here- I think IRC contributes to this. And, sure, I appreciate the irony in my being on the anti-IRC side in an effort to protest people taking sides, but there's not much to be done about it. I'm a self-proclaimed wikipedian fundamentalist- and IRC is not Misplaced Pages. I'm more comfortable people who's focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Friday (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But her focus is the actual project, not some chat room. Your extrapolation that that chatting is her focus from the fact that she once asked for advice from another admin about a block is what disturbs me. Yes, she asked once as a newbie admin. How does that prove that chat rooms are her focus now today? Your position seems to be that if you admit to using IRC even once, that chatting is your focus forever. Don't you think its possible that she learned her lesson? Why make a continuing assumption of bad faith for one action? I can understand opposing for lack of experience, but just for using IRC once months ago strikes me as absurd. I mean I used IRC once, but chat rooms aren't my focus on the project. By your logic, they automatically must be. What I see is someone getting slammed months after the fact for telling the truth about one incident. I know at least one candidate you supported uses IRC all the time. They have never announced this publically however. Which is worse, hiding it or admitting to it? Kylu could have just denied ever asking for advice, yet she chose to tell the truth about it. That certainly sounds more transparent to me than someone who uses IRC but doesn't tell anyone. Well thanks for being a good sport about this. I just get curious as the logic behind people's thinking sometimes. pschemp | talk 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith- I'm sure she means well. She strikes me as young and inexperienced, more into socializing than editing. Could I be wrong about this? Sure, very easily. But the recollection I have was that she did something unwise and explained herself by saying her IRC buddies told her it was OK. It's not that using IRC once means you're incompetant- hell, I've been in there before and I'm sure many others have too. It's possible she's become far wiser since then, but the impression I have is the one I have. It's possible I've voted unfairly on her due to my belief that the "IRC bloc" is harmful to the project. But it's the vote I made, and I see little reason to change it. I could be wrong about IRC being harmful, but I can't see how I'd be wrong about her lack of experience. Friday (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said before, I totally understand an oppose based on lack of experience, as it is true that she really hasn't been around that long. I'm not in any way trying to get you to change your vote, but if what you are saying is the IRC thing is a *symptom* of lack of experience, rather than the *main* reason for opposing, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the reply. pschemp | talk 16:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC is another tool for communication. Since it's not part of the wiki, people use it to try out ideas and get advice before they take official action on-wiki. It's a good way to stay out of trouble. :-)

If I remember correctly, Kylu happens to actually be an IRC expert. It's what she does when she's not on wikipedia too, and it's where she gained most of her experience in online governance, so it's a bit unfair to be negative about her IRC activity.

Kim Bruning 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's also a good way for a bloc of editors to agree that something is sensible ahead of time, and the reasoning that went into this decision is then lost to the ether rather than being written somewhere useful. Maybe it's just that I associate a few spectactularly bad editors with IRC and I don't know about all the good ones who also hang out there, but I don't see that it's beneficial to the project. I see that a lot of people have a habit of supporting their friends, not because they're doing the right thing, but because of who they are. This is harmful and I think IRC fraternizing contributes to this. Every action should be judged on its own merits, not on the basis of whether the person doing it is your friend. Friday (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. (response to the latest) From what I've seen about the way people "govern" IRC channels, this is absolutely contrary to how we handle things at Misplaced Pages. If we want wikipedia to turn into junior high school, let's bring in those experienced IRC folks. If we're trying to produce a quality encyclopedia, a different approach is called for. Friday (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there's some discussion related to this topic at Misplaced Pages talk:Out of band communication considered harmful. Friday (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nono, iirc Kylu was involved in irc *networks*, not channels. It's a different universe entirely, to do with cooperating on sharing real-world resources.

Note that IRC is explicitly used allow fast real-time communications. Things like dealing with vandalbots would be a lot harder or even impossible without it these days. :-/

We do have a rule that to have things become official, it must be taken to wikipedia. There are many many people on irc, I'm sure there's both good and bad people there. :)

Kim Bruning 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia drama?

I'm confused by your repeated use of the word "drama". Is there something inherently dramatic about redirects that I'm not seeing? Friday (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I continue to be very curious at your use of the word "drama" in this case. Are you using this word to mean "something I disagree with"? Friday (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

drama -noun see meaning #4 and perhaps #5: 1/2 --Cat out 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

I am an alternate account of a long time editor who does not wish to get embroiled in an issue. It would be reasonably trivial to determine which longtime editor this is based on my statements about asking a question on the RD and getting a lame answer, but I'd ask you not do that. Thanks. RDWarrior 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Good luck. Friday (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

nandesuka vote

In case you don't recall, Nandesuka blocked me for a month over a content dispute. No mediation, no arbitration, just unilateral, overly long action. Not really the sort of fair arbitrator wikipedia needs. Justforasecond 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall. Someplace I can read about this? Friday (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology

It's ok - if the media picked up on it - I'd point them towards the pictures of cocks, oral sex and various other things like that and scream "will someone not think of the children". that would solve that problem. As for scientology, it's a wacko cult, that's the prevailing outlook of my culture and that's what I'm reflecting. --Charlesknight 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, alright, but wikipedia is not a forum, not a place for our personal opinions. Friday (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or what? --Charlesknight 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Friday (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Restoring some sanity

In this edit you were one of those editors I was referring to that I deeply respect, yet over the last month find myself losing that respect, and Jimbo's post to the list jerked me back to reality. We have crossed paths a few times and I have found your comments to be of excellent quality and well considered. --Trödel 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. but what have I been doing wrong the past month? Friday (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing individually, as a group I think we have been unproductive - good editors fighting instead of working together to reach concensus - anyway - I am going to step away for a few days - maybe I'll see my comments as stupid when I get back --Trödel 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it's all too easy for things to get derailed- thanks for trying to get them back on track. Friday (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

If you review what's been going on, I have just had dozens of images and many many hours of work simply blown away by said admin Quadell who refused to listen to any argument at all, or provide any examples whatsoever of the so-called reasonableness he professed to have. Not ONE. The odds of me somehow influencing said admin are greater than me hitting the moon tonight with a slingshot. I tried. I was totally ignored. I was told this is the policy and Jimbo Wales supports it and tough sh*t, oh but courteously, of course. What should I do, say thanks? Bullsh*t. I now have page after page I have worked my ass off on that look like hell, and have had image after image deleted when no free image exists. Of course, said admin didn't bother to fix layouts, etc. He just mass-deleted nearly everything he marked. Period. And god forbid he find any of the free images that might someday exist, which is simply asinine beyond all measure at the outset. You're an admin, isn't there anyone that's willing to stand up to this lunacy? Any other suggestions? You're welcome to take this discussion off-line and e-mail me if you wish - I'm going to be writing and speaking publicly about this issue until and unless it's changed, period, and it will affect all I say about the Misplaced Pages project, which I generally support, until it's modified. I am a member of the real press and I do actually care about this stuff, and my work. Tvccs 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm the admin Tvccs is referring to. Many of Tvccs's images were tagged as being replaceable, and he objected to these. (As you may be aware, our first fair use criterion requires that "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" in order for us to use a non-free image, and counter-example #8 states that "an image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" would "almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use".) On some images, Tvccs disputed that a free replacement image could be created. On others, he did not dispute this, but merely stated that no free images were known to exist at this time. Following our rfu policy, after a week those images which seemed non-replaceable were kept, and those which fell clearly into the example of counter-example #8 were deleted. All discussion was saved; feel free to review.

You may be interested to know (if you don't already) that an RFC was previously filed against Chowbok for doing this same work, and Jimbo Wales weighed in to offer support for Chowbok's work. In my opinion, there are many newer users who like using non-free images on Misplaced Pages, and who really don't like our image use policy. Some of these users, such as Tvccs, seem to take out their unhappiness on the admins who do the hard work of enforcing our policies.

Incidentally, I have to say in my defense that I did not "mass-delete" anything. I reviewed each, and decided based on the nature of the image and how it was used in the article. I listened to all Tvccs's arguments, and did not ignore him. I do disagree with him, but that's not the same thing. It's also not true that I "didn't bother to fix layouts". I edited every article these images were included in, so as not to leave ugly missing image boxes.

Thanks for caring about this issue. All the best, – Quadell 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than clutter your page, I have moved my reply to Quadell. I will state, for the record, that the above reply is patently untrue. Tvccs 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope this works out peacefully. Sorry for my lack of input- I've got other controversies I'm already in the middle of. Friday (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your feedback. It won't, until the way the policy is being enforced is changed. Not gonna happen. Tvccs 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current block - a suggestion

Friday - from the text on your user page I understand that you are open to feedback on your admin actions, so may I offer the following feedback, and what I hope you will take as a constructive suggestion. I believe your week-long block of Light current was an over-reaction - I have explained why I think this on AN/I. However, I know Light current can be flippant and annoying at times, and it can be difficult to remain calm when dealing with him. What is done is done, but would you perhaps consider reducing the length of Light current's block to, say, 48 hours ? I think this would show a good example of reasonableness to both Light current and to other observers of your dispute, and will avoid the further escalation of what is, fundamentally, a quite minor disagreement. Thank you for listening to my suggestion. Gandalf61 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, replied at AN/I. He's been blocked many times before with no noticable change to his disruptive, juvenile behavior. I don't see this as a minor disagreement- I see Misplaced Pages as a project to build an encyclopedia. He sees it as his own personal playground/chat room. These goals are not compatible. If his goals conflict with the goals of the project, I'm sorry to say he is not welcome here. Friday (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I fear I've overstepped my bounds a bit, and I hope you can let it slide. I've unblocked Light current, for reasons which I have described here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Light_current (diff). I think that he is generally a helpful Ref Desk contributor, and I hope that he has gotten the message that off-colour and newbie-biting remarks are not appropriate.

I don't think that the block you placed was unjustified, and I think that you're being unfairly pilloried by certain individuals because you asked about the Ref Desk's purpose. In any case, I'm asking all of the involved parties to adhere to the highest standards of civil and courteous behaviour. I have indicated that this unblock should be treated as a parole and not a pardon, and that I or anyone else may restore the block if LC doesn't stay on the straight and narrow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Overstep? Hell no- all editors should be a check on each other. Thanks for handling this. Friday (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a very reasonable admin and I liked your most recent post on AN/I. Can I make a suggestion? He seems contrite. What if he accepted that any repeat of trollish or grossly inappopriate behaviour on the RD will result in a lengthy (say, 1 month) block? Blocks are supposed to cure behaviour... if LC's recent comments are to be believed, you've achieved your goal. --Dweller 15:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me- but I'm happy to let TenOfAllTrades or others handle this guy. Friday (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday, I highly value the Reference Desk, so I expect you can understand why I do not agree with your devaluing it as part of Misplaced Pages. As for the 1 week block of Lightcurrent, I subscribe to the notion of progressive discipline. A 24 hour block is an action which should get an editors attention and may cause him to reflect and reform. If it doesn't work, a 48 hour one might. No good result? Try 1 week. Etc. Since I value Ref Desk, and devote many hours per week to finding info and answering questions in my areas of expertise, I do appreciate the efforts of you and others to remove trolling and inappropriate efforts at humor which degrade the project. Thanks for your efforts in this regard. Edison 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday - I have another suggestion, which I hope you will take in good part. Your recent posting at LC's talk page does not help to build bridges and could be considered to be provoking LC. Why not just leave the guy alone for a while and see if he improves his behaviour ? I am sure you can trust TenOfAllTrades to keep a close eye on him. Gandalf61 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought I was giving him much-needed advice. He absolutely needs to understand that nobody has to show him a sentence in a rule book to explain why his behavior is a problem. But, I'll take your advice- someone else can easily explain such things to him. Friday (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Posts

Hi Friday - I just saw your post to THB. DirkvdM was also blocked too - I only know of these two blocking incidences. There are other issues lingering about from a few months ago with other users. --HappyCamper 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Friday, maybe it was off-topic for the ref desk talk but maybe your reply should be there anyway since it's important to dispel the admin-non-admin thing now that the genie's out of the bottle on the ref desk talk page. -THB 17:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

meh, the genie's been out of the bottle and many editors have commented in favor of the ref desk not being used for off topic conversations but certain regulars have ignored or discounted those opinions. pschemp | talk 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

HI!

I WUZ HERE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxcowieguydudemanboyxxxxxxxxxxxx (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Your silliness is important to us, and will be answered in the order it was received. Friday (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted question

Hi, Friday, I left a comment about a deleted question on the RD talk page. -THB 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, same time I did. :) Friday (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible edit conflict on Science RD

Friday - your response to the "Retarded" thread on the Science RD overwrote a previous response by Zeizmic - maybe there was an edit conflict ? Anyway, I have restored Zeimic's response, so no harm done. Gandalf61 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh ... just saw your note on Zeizmic's talk page. So it wasn't an edit conflict after all. Well, I still think his response should be restored - "unhelpful" is not a good reason for deleting an RD response. Don't you think your RD deletions are perhaps getting a bit out of control ? Gandalf61 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I thought it was out of control, obviously I wouldn't do it. Do you think you improved the quality of the reference desk with the edit you made? You may wish to look at also. Friday (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday - I have tried hard to be polite, civil and constructive in all of my interactions with you, so please do not take that high-handed tone with me. It is not about "improving the quality of the reference desk". It is about treating other editors with respect. Zeizmic is a regular RD contributor and deserves to be treated with more consideration than you showed. Although his talk page shows that some of his RD responses have been criticised, he has also received a barnstar for his RD work. The response that you removed was not great, but there was nothing offensive about it. On the other hand your message on his talk page was abrupt, rude, arrogant and provoactive. If you disagreed with his response, you should have put a polite message on his talk page first, and given him the opportunity to fix or remove his reply himself. This incident, coming on top of your attempt to impose a week-long ban on LC over a minor disagreement, shows that you have a tendency to over-react and take hasty and ill-considered actions. I am suggesting that you take a step back and reflect on how you can carry out your monitoring of the RDs in a less controversial way in future. Gandalf61 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very, very wrong when you say "It is not about "improving the quality of the reference desk". That is exactly what it is about. If you think socializing is more important than improving the project, your goals are way wrong. I've said it before, I'll say it again: The interests of the project are far, far more important than preventing minor offense to an individual editor. Sometimes, when people do things others disagree with, they get complained at. We're all supposed to be adults here, so this shouldn't be a big problem. However, if I've been uncivil, it's not intentional, and thanks for pointing it out. Even when leaving a message that says essentially "Don't do that!" we should be polite. I'll be more polite in the future. But, check his talk page- he didn't bite my head off, so why are you? Friday (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you made that revert, not because it improved the page, but to make a point to me, this is the wrong way to do things- that's called disruption of Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Obviously the "disruption" in this case was trivial and not worth me whining about, but next time please: make only edits which you honestly feel are an improvement. If you want to tell me I'm a bonehead, you're welcome to, but that's what my talk page is for. And yah, I get your point- I've been a bonehead here and there with respect to the reference desk. My reason (not an excuse) is to advance the interests of the project, but there are better ways for me to do this. Thanks again for your feedback. Friday (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

re: ouch

No, no of course not! Read it carefully- yes it would be unlikely for sex jokes to be mentioned in an article about reference desks, because they've only been one or two isolated incidents. In the same way it would be unlikely for viciously revert-happy admins to be mentioned in such an article because there aren't any. I could have used any example, but one so close to home seemed most potent :) --⁪froth 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not how we do things

I believe this page should help: WP:DDV. Unfortunately it's being opposed by quite a lot of people who find it counterintuitive. Your input would, of course, be welcome. (Radiant) 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try, but wow: it's a whole different culture over there. There's a set of editors who don't understand wikipedia, but they're wary of someone coming in and peeing on their playground. It's kind of "hey, we know how to run our OWN reference desk, don't come in and tell us what to do." Foolishly, I've been more bludgeoning them in the right direction than nudging them, which is not effective. If anything, it's only made them defensive. *slaps forehead* Friday (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And also, Template:Proposal, where a user insists that it cannot have language discouraging voting on proposals. I'll see what I can do simplifying refdesk guidelines. (Radiant) 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I'll keep an eye on it. It's weird how little pockets of people can form who are out of step with mainstream views of the project. BTW I linked StuRat to WP:PPP the other day in an effort to explain stuff- noticed you wrote that somewhat recently. Great stuff. Friday (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I think PPP needs some work, or possibly a guideline tag, because when I refer people to it they have a tendency to say I can't do that since I'm the one who wrote it. Weird, indeed. (Radiant) 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good illustration of the paradox of policy and guideline. It's as close to "policy" as almost anything we have, but it's labeled "essay". I was wondering too if I'd hear the objection "Somebody just recently made that up!!" when it's actually very well rooted in practice and tradition. Friday (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nudging

Friday, you have to be able to have a productive conversation with someone to nudge them. The air is too thick for that right this second. You don't have to be friends with Light current and StuRat but you do have to be able to work with them. If you all were my employees, you'd be going to lunch together every day whether you wanted to or not.

As far as Vjvenus or Mr. Playmate or whatever, I have reviewed the content of all of his edits, and I don't think he's a troll. I agree with nothing he says, but he's not trying to think up things to say just to get a reaction. He believes the things he's saying. But he's also asking for information. It takes less time to point him towards it than to delete his comments & tag his talk page, etc. -THB 16:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right of course- too much assuming the "other side" are hopeless fools or actively out to hurt the project. This goes for me too, of course. Thanks for trying to get people to be a bit more sane. I hope it works. Friday (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely will work. It's actually funny in a way because all of the people involved are relatively intelligent. Take 30 points off everyone's IQ and you wouldn't have these problems. Just an observation. -THB 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True.. smart people are often way too convinced of their own correctness. I'm not this rabid most of the time, but I fell into it this time, like a fool. Friday (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Friday is always welcome

Thanks, Friday. It's quite vicious, though, and a form of attack I thought was contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. But I am tough, and I will hold out. To be young, female and intelligent, one has no other choice. I now believe user Loomis to be emotionally unstable; and that is merely an observation, not an attack. Your words of encouragement are very welcome at a difficult time. Clio the Muse 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Friday. I've posted one final statement on this business, summing things up as I see them. No more will be said by me, regardless of any further venom. I thank you once again for your words. Clio the Muse 08:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Block user request

Please consider blocking the following user(s):
Soccerguy1039 (talk · contribs)

Reason: This user has been various Final Fantasy pages and has been vandalizing his own user talk page. — Chris53516 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)q

I complained at him about being rude. But, geez, if he's keeping his silliness on this own talk page, that's better than elsewhere. I don't see a good reason to stir the pot. Friday (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How many times does he need a "last warning" on his page to be blocked? They're empty threats if we don't act on it. — Chris53516 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I only glanced, but saw only a few recent edits- nothing stood out as definitely blockable. But, if you see something that does, please give me a diff and I'll take a look. Friday (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the first "last warning" was an over-reaction. These, however, are continued reversions in violation of WP:3RR:

He's a bit obsessed, I'd say. I didn't look through his other contributions for such behavior, but if he's doing it in one place, he's likely to do it elsewhere. Each reversion of the above includes a warning about not changing it again, so the "final warning" on his talk page is appropriate. Either block him or give him another strong warning. — Chris53516 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to list this again as I did above, but here are some more at the bottom of this page and on the next: It appears as if he then logged out and continued to make the same edits. This needs to be dealt with. — Chris53516 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of this goes back a ways. 3RR (not that I approve of it) applies to 24-hour periods. If if continues to be a problem, something should be done. Friday (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't add in stuff that I deleted from my talk page. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soccerguy1039 (talk • contribs).

Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks

I realize that it's controversial, but it does say that it can be "used sparingly". That was not (under any interpretation) anything but a personal attack on me; it added absolutely nothing to the conversation. Since some admins have allowed it to stand for so long without deleting it I decided that the only action left available to me was to remove it myself. The trend lately by admins has been to delete conversation that is off-topic; I assumed that they all missed seeing that one, so decided to help them out. I do not have to be subjected to personal attacks one tiny bit more than any other editor at Misplaced Pages. Thank You for your concern in this matter. Duke53 | 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Light current

Hi Friday.

While the advice and explanation you gave to Light current was good, I think you can understand that you're not a person that he's likely to want to hear (or listen to) advice from at the moment.

I am sure that there are enough people following what's going on that you don't need to respond to everything that he posts on his talk page. In the interest of calming things down, I urge you to just stay away from contact with him for the duration of his block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I've commented there only a couple times in the last few days and have no further plans to correspond with him. I seriously considered using an alternate account to leave that last note, so he'd not prejudge, but I figured that would only lead to its own complications. Friday (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility was clearly ridiculous. What's going on here? Friday (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want a long or short answer? --Cat out 08:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it's complicated- please explain as much as you wish. I see no reason for a block tho- do you? If you can work things out without further disruption, I think minimal harm has been done. Friday (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My intention is not disruption, on the contrary. I just do not see a workable way to point out a fundamental flaw with our community.

It actually isn't very complicated. Like the Kelly Martin section on your talk page, incivility has started to even come from our exemplary contributors (such as Kelly Martin). Incivility has became a norm and civil people are almost punished for it.

An example is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elaragirl. Not only were people disagreeing with me (I am not pissed that people disagreeing with me), their defense was counter accusations for things I have done over a year ago and people "endorsed" that.

This isn't just about the RfC but a much more serious problem with wikipedia-wide implications. I do not know where to "discuss" it. I am actualy hesitant to even discuss it because of the number of trolls I am dealing with.

--Cat out 08:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all ears when it comes to people kicking around ideas about how to deal with systemic problems. Discussion by itself is rarely harmful- if you're not sure where it belongs, start here on your talk page and once the idea is more developed, post it somewhere else too. I personally keep a scratchpad of half-developed ideas- that might work too. I agree with you on incivility being a widespread problem- I myself was needlessly rude a few times recently and I'm sure this did not improve my ability to communicate. However I think most reasonable editors realize we're all just human. If we make a mistake, we can always say "oops, I messed up" and try to do better next time. I hope not too many people would hold this against us. Friday (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More than one incivility per month makes Wikipe-tan cry. The problem is some people make a habit of it which just depresses Wikipe-tan.

Another reason why we have so much incivility is that several editors (such as myself) are kept on the edge all the time by various trolls. On private discussion people can easily identify trolling but very rarely do they ever react to it when it is staring at them in the face publicaly.

The strategy is to bore off the trolls which is not a working one, wikipedia is too popular for that. Once a troll finally goes away, a new one or ten comes in its place. Its a never ending circle that needs to be disrupted. There are two types of trolls, content trolls and forking trolls. And I am not even referencing to content trolls, those are a different story.

I think there are multiple aspects to the problem. What do you think?

--Cat out 09:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Kjvenus

Well, I think you over-reacted again. I don't see how his "news channel" question got him a 24 hour block. It would have been sufficient to change the heading of his question - the rest of it was fine - and to leave a polite note on his talk page explaining what you had done and why. And you seem to have blocked him as a punitive measure, which goes against WP:BP. Finally, if Kjvenus is attention seeking, rather than asking his questions in good faith, then you have reinforced his behaviour by showing him just how easily he can get a reaction from you. Gandalf61 22:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Punitive? No, it's to prevent further inappropriate questions. Yes, it's true that maybe some folks enjoy being blocked, but we can do little about this. I see messages on his talk page dating back to 15 November about proper use of the reference desk. If you think more explaining will help him, by all means have a go at it. I did what I thought was reasonable. Friday (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was an inappropriate block. StuRat 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? At Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_15#Is_the_reference_desk_harmful_to_newbies.3F, you called him a troll. Did his behavior improve in some way that lead you to change your mind? Friday (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some serious questions on the Ref Desk from him since then. And, not all trolls require blocking. StuRat 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We own our edits

You said "Why should we own our admin actions any more than we own our edits?" at WP:AN/I; but in fact every edit even though submitted under the GFDL copyright licence is also fully owned by the contributor so that they can also cross license it as they please. Further, both the law and our Wikimedia lawyer are quite clear that each individual editor is legally responsible for their own behavior/edits with regard to all legal liabilities such as copyright and defamation so We own our edits. WAS 4.250 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, poorly chosen words. I mean we should encourage collaboration and discourage individuals from wanting to own wikipedia too much. Friday (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please recuse yourself from the Ref Desk

As we are now aware that you still have the goal of destroying the Ref Desk , despite how you earlier claimed to have changed you opinion, please recuse yourself from all future Resk Desk matters. You are clearly not objective, but have an agenda of destroying the Ref Desk any way you can, as has also been demonstrated by your attempts to disrupt building a consensus on Ref Desk guidelines, inappropriate deletions from the Ref Desk and inappropriate blocks of Ref Desk users. This is not acceptable behavior. StuRat 18:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. As I pointed out when this same issue was brought up last time, the obvious answer is to fix what's wrong, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I updated the misc page to more accurately reflect my latest thoughts on this issue. I reserve the right to change my mind. Was there something that lead you to believe I wanted to delete the reference desk today? I don't see that I've nominated it for deletion or anything like that. So, what exactly are we disagreeing over? Forgive me for saying so, but it almost looks to me like you're trying to stir up trouble for its own sake. Friday (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You left that statement there, even though you had edited that very section several times since, most recently just 4 days ago, indicating you haven't changed your mind. Then, when we found it, you quickly changed it so as to "hide the evidence". StuRat 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't "hide the evidence"- it's a wiki. Histories are available for all to see. If I was plotting some terrible malfeasance, do you think I'd leave myself notes about it on the wiki? This is just bizarre. Anyway, this issue was brought up before, on the RD talk page, and has since been archived. I see little value in repeating ourselves. Can we please, please focus on what's best for the project, rather than on how evil I am? Friday (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You were apparently betting we wouldn't find that bit, and now people will have to search through your history to find it. How exactly do you explain your editing that very section 4 days ago but not removing the bit about wanting to delete the Ref Desk (until we found it) ? StuRat 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't helping. All I can say is- the points I've had to make that are relevant to the reference desk were made on the appropriate talk page. This exact point was already discussed, remember? I came in and said "Look at all this junk- why do we even bother having a reference desk?" And a few people pointed out that it's also able to be useful to the project, and reminded me that we don't throw babies out with bathwater. Since then, I've been focusing on how to improve the good parts and fix the bad parts- I believe I made a statements exactly to that effect. Friday (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you want an answer to your specific question- changed the page to reflect my current thoughts because spending time arguing over an opinion I don't hold anymore did not seem like it would benefit the encyclopedia in any way. Friday (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why didn't you "change the page to reflect your current thoughts" when you edited that section 4 days ago ? StuRat 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Spending time asking me why I don't update it often enough doesn't benefit the encyclopedia in any way, either. Check the top of the page- it's just a scratchpad for thoughts. Some of what's there has probably been wrong for a very long time. I'm very much at a loss for what else can be said about it. Friday (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But you did update that section, just 4 days ago, and left the comment about removing the Ref Desk, indicating that, despite what you told us, that is still your goal. StuRat 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's none of my business, I'd be thrilled if the two of you could terminate this thread, because it's taken a very ugly turn and isn't likely to be resolved the way it's going. Misplaced Pages would not be a pleasant place to work if we chose to interpret every comment ever posted by an editor in the worst possible light assumed the worst possible intentions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But how do you put any good interpretation on this ?

"The various reference desk pages should probably just go away. Unless they serve some useful purpose I'm not aware of, they seem more trouble than they're worth."

StuRat 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they serve some useful purpose I'm not aware of - I believe that he realized that if questions were answered with references to Misplaced Pages articles or reliable external sources the reference desk would have value. You are literally on the verge of being excluded from reasonable discussion regarding the RD. I strongly suggest you focus on the content, not the contributors. I have almost superhuman abilities to ignore people - I will use them on you if I must. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. How many times are you going to bring up this quote? It is clear from User:Friday/Misc#Reference_desk that Friday's initial position has since changed. Move on. David D. (Talk) 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lovable idiots

User:Friday, I would appreciate it if you would post a complete list of the people you consider to be "lovable idiots". -THB 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how such a thing would benefit the project. Friday (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That hasn't stopped you before. -THB 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been making quite an effort to focus on what's relevant to improving the reference desk, rather than focusing on personal conflicts between editors. I thought we'd been reasonably able to communicate when talking about how to improve the reference desk. I dislike telling other people what to do, but I must ask you to put this personal conflict behind us now. Remarks like those you made at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guideline#Is_there_a_reason_to_make_reference_desk_specific_rules.3F are actively counterproductive, so please keep them to my talk page in the future. I can't promise I'll respond (if I'm wise, I probably won't), but I can tell you I will see them. Friday (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Friday. I saw on the admin coaching status page that you and DakotaKahn were coaching Fetofs. Since Fetofs is on wikibreak or retired, would you like a new student? Thanks, Fang Aili 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like borrowing trouble to me. It's not clear to me that I was helpful for Fetofs, so I'm not crazy about volunteering again. Friday (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Philwelch

I'm becoming extremely worried about this admin. Yet once again he has misused his position of authority: he blanked an page in an edit dispute, and blocked a user who was in disagreement with him (see here) - and when someone else pointed out his awful history, he called for that person to be blocked as well. It's become quite clear to me that this person does not know how to use his tools responsibly. Do you agree there's anything that should be done? (BTW, I'm not sure if I'll be around, so sorry if I don't respond)-Patstuart 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Anshe Chung, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Misplaced Pages's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Assault rifle, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

Harassment

User:Friday, I couldn't help but notice your remark about feeling harassed at the RD talk page. Don't take this the wrong way, but I assure you that any harassment you were subjected to was a reaction to that which you gave to others. Generally, if you wonder why others treat you a certain way, it's because that's the way you treat them. Not just on Misplaced Pages, but in life. -THB 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed an RFC on StuRat and THB here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)