I forget where I saw this in a comment of yours, but it is the most amusing expression I have come across on Wikipedia in a very long time. Thanks for the humour. :-) --
HappyCamper
12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I'd not be surprised if they do decide to get rid of my 1FA page altogether on MfD one day. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me clean up the Filipino hip hop please?? also you need to archive your talk page it is over 120kb and takes forever to load. thanks!!!
Thanks. It was just a matter of refreshing my watchlist at the right moment, though. Before that I'd overlooked an entire Megatokyo-related AfD. You win some, you lose some. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I need your help trying to resolve a dispute with Cyde. I believe he overreacted when he decided to protect my userpage. I did not have anything offensive or blatently obscene on it, merely a small list of admins (the usual suspects) who I felt were abusing their authority with respect to userboxes inside a subsection called 'wikipoop' (a term I made up as a joke). I do not think that is out of line since I can think of dozens of userpages which are much worse (deeceevoice, SPUI, etc). I do not directly call these people names or anything, just list some reasons why I think they have handled userbox deletion badly. I tried responding to Cyde's arguments on my talk page, but he hasn't replied since protecting my page. I just let it go for a few weeks, in an effort to be more productive in article space, but I can't ignore it any longer. I use my page to keep notes on various article works in progress as well as personal info, so I really need it unprotected. Could you please unprotect my page? Thank you in advance. -- Dragon695 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I was rude to refer to your "characteristic personal attacks" and to "nonsense" and "trolling". I apologise unreservedly for this.
Wikipedia really could do without further unproductive interactions, so I'll continue trying not to respond to your edits, which I find singularly provocative, and which you have admitted are based on assumption of bad faith. -- Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what's going on here. It looks like you're posting civility warnings to his talk page, but after he removed them you keep re-adding them. What's the point of this? If he removed the message, it's a pretty safe bet that he saw them. What do you seek to accomplish by making sure they stay on the page? -- Ryan Delaney talk 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Meh. When will I learn about asking Tito to chip in? ^_^
I will, however, defer to the wiser heads who have chipped in (and Lar, too) and approach Tony only indirectly as much as I can. That being said, surely there is a place for polite discussion of a perceived problem, and I'd like that discussion to continue here. Will someone tell me I'm wrong in feeling that Tony is an aggressive editor, is dismissive of criticism, and that tumult follows in his wake? That I'm wrong to feel that this is not good for Wikipedia? brenneman {L} 06:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you wrong? No. But (and this is a change in how I perceive how things ought to be from where I was 3 or 6 months ago, as I've grokked more of the wikiway) there is a need for aggressive editing, within reason, for it is how policy gets reshaped, how the parameters of what we do change, how the wiki grows. Too aggressive is not good but Bold-Revert-Discuss depends on aggressive editors being, well, aggressive (bold). That may not be quite the meaning of aggressive you mean, I realise. As for dismissive of criticism, that too has merit, up to a point... to be too sensitive of criticism is to not be willing to do the right thing (again, I think Tony, and you, and I, and others, may go too far in that dismissal sometimes). And as for tumult, that just seems to go with the first two. Tumult follows in your wake and my wake too after all... (cont'd)
So, all that said, is that a free pass for Tony, or for you, or for me? No. But it is something to think about. There is no denying that Tony does what he does because he thinks it is for the good of the encyclopedia. And if he's the very prow of the icebreaker in coursing a new path, if his actions seem rash and intemperate and ignoring all rules... that's not necessarily completely or even mostly bad. Someone has to be the lightning rod, and maybe it's a good thing this particular lightning rod is so strong and able to take so much heat. And you know he's almost always right about stuff too. Not always, but often enough that I've come to think that reflexively resisting or questioning is not a good strategy (not that you're reflexivly doing that... but you know me, I paint in black and white for the sake of analogy when the world is actually gray)... All that said, could he be more civil? Does he have a blind spot and tend to view your actions with undue scrutiny? Sure. I didn't say he was perfect. And I'll keep pointing out where I think he went too far, of course. + + Lar: t/ c 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
When I look back over the recent past, and the large and small-scale changes the have come down the pipe, three stand out to me. Two I was close to (mediumish ones) and one I had nothing to do with (a huge one.) These are 1) VfU -> DRv 2) WP:COMIC -> WP:WEB and 3) PROD.
In every case, it was a combination of a lot of groundwork, wide ranging discussion, bold (but not agressive) editing, and patience and flexibility in the aftermath. Steve Block, Radiant!, Encephelon, these are all editors who have worked to lead policy. They've grabbed on with both hands and rode.
Without being rude. brenneman {L} 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added myself to the category, and left talk page comments supporting my own stricter standard (one WPian substantively claiming admin abuse.) "Captain Beefheart"? :) What's your tipple of choice over on the other side of the world? Must be good stuff! :D In praise of your leadership, Xoloz 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. 126K talk page, just so you know. Archive time?
Perhaps we're going in the same direction here, or perhaps not, but I created this idea for a community-based desysopping process (yes, I know, a perennially rejected proposal and all that, but this is just an idea, I'm not publicizing yet, that I think would satisfy both the people calling for a process, and those who are currently afraid it's unworkable). I'd appreciate input. Dmcdevit· t 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It sucks. I wish you would put your energy to use creating content instead of metaplaying around and trying to destroy it. Grace Note 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
66% surely isn't a consensus, not even close to my usual minimum of 70%. I would have appreciated that the editor actually contacted me first, and I guess I wouldn't be re-opening this AfD anytime soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Antichrist is a mess. Serious external link infestation. Convert to Cite, purge the noise. - brenneman {L} 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Aaron. I read your comments at WP:signature, and just wanted to say that I also have never had a problem with signature length, and I don't understand why it's an issue at all. I guess I just needed to express my bewilderment to someone. So that's just a bit of support for you. See ya on the flip side. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! -- M e rovingian { T C @} 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If User A has edited from 128.0.0.2, 128.0.0.5, 128.0.0.7 and 128.0.0.3, and User B, with similar interests and abuses edits from 128.0.0.4, autoblocking would be overly agressive, but it's an obvious sockpuppet, much like I am! Clarifier 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
why did you remove the entire references section from the Astral projection article Facto 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I apologize for making such accusations...it's just frustrating that the article was ever conceived of being written in the first place. Adam Bishop 15:54, 26 May 2006 to 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I really wasn't that worried about it...I'd much rather have people say about my posts, "This isn't ANI worthy" than other alternatives such as "Why in the world did you do this block?" :o) I'll still post on the stuff that I feel is potentially worthy, and as my experience level goes up, I'm sure the severity of what I consider potentially worthy will likely go up as well. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you removed the "cultural references" section of the Psychokinesis article. These sections, often entitled "In popular culture," have been out of control of late and have become dumping grounds for inclusion of unreferenced items and displays of personal knowledge of anime, etc. But, was this just an act of boldness on your part, or is there an emerging consensus that these sections ought to go?
I ask this because, well, see Statue of Liberty for example... I don't have the guts to pull the trigger on this one myself, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Archive.org is not a commercial website. Please see creativecommons.org Archive.org is how you publish your cc'ed work to the net... The external link I put was not a commercial link but academic research I found recently Towsonu2003 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will go expand on the vote, it just seems incredibly cruel to make a game off the requirements to survive on the streets. That and it looks dodgy. Thank you for the warm fuzzy vibes, they are warm and fuzzy.
I suck at couplets, especially on Sundays. I would fall back on my new favourite insult, "I would say you were great, but I'm in the pedia." Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Brenny, and NO thank you for your LACK OF comments (despite my saving you a place and everything, personal health is SUCH A WEAK EXCUSE!!) in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again! + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies articles?... Are you an accountable admin?... |
The pain! My secret shame writ large, and in garish colours even! *sob*
brenneman
{L}
16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for major overhaul of the Kate Moss entry. However I am surprised that you deleted the Trivia section, since I saw these on many other entries for persons. -- Pmkpmk 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
G'day Aaron,
you're right ... that was a big call. For what it's worth, I agree with what you've done. The debate was irreparably tainted by the refactoring work very early on, and I think a clean slate is necessary. Cheers, fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your assessment is accurate. The sudden interest in this esoteric musical subject would be most welcome, under other, more constructive (rather than destructive) circumstances. You are not the first editor to express an apparent antipathy for certain aspects of this culture, particularly as regards the notability of its practitioners. Such controversies have gotten rather heated in the past, a fact which does perplex me to no small extent. What is boils down to is that it seems so pointless to so massively delete others' content, which was arrived at over months, if not years of very painstaking research and editing by editors knowledgeable about the subject. I do not do so to others' content unless it is wrong information. Thanks and best, Badagnani 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Oy. Maybe list it for peer review? It does seem to have a large number of pics, but there is also a large amount of text to go with them. I have to wonder about the copyright status of a lot of those pics, though. Especially the collage at the top. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Aaron, *sigh* doesn't quite encapsulate the frustration that many are feeling. Apart from the obvious expletives, the four words that spring to mind are: bang, head, brick, and wall. Unfortunately, neither side shows signs of becoming bored and going away - we will be "celebrating" the 1st anniversary of the userbox wars come New Year 2007 I fear. Who knows when this will end? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to know there are voices of reason out there. And let me know when you have a draft policy in place to implement the *boing button*, I will be one of the first in line to support it. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy to be an intermediary if it helps [1]. But it probably wont and the boxes aren't worth it anyway. -- Doc ask? 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That's all. :) - Will Beback 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I forget where I saw this in a comment of yours, but it is the most amusing expression I have come across on Wikipedia in a very long time. Thanks for the humour. :-) --
HappyCamper
12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I'd not be surprised if they do decide to get rid of my 1FA page altogether on MfD one day. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you help me clean up the Filipino hip hop please?? also you need to archive your talk page it is over 120kb and takes forever to load. thanks!!!
Thanks. It was just a matter of refreshing my watchlist at the right moment, though. Before that I'd overlooked an entire Megatokyo-related AfD. You win some, you lose some. – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I need your help trying to resolve a dispute with Cyde. I believe he overreacted when he decided to protect my userpage. I did not have anything offensive or blatently obscene on it, merely a small list of admins (the usual suspects) who I felt were abusing their authority with respect to userboxes inside a subsection called 'wikipoop' (a term I made up as a joke). I do not think that is out of line since I can think of dozens of userpages which are much worse (deeceevoice, SPUI, etc). I do not directly call these people names or anything, just list some reasons why I think they have handled userbox deletion badly. I tried responding to Cyde's arguments on my talk page, but he hasn't replied since protecting my page. I just let it go for a few weeks, in an effort to be more productive in article space, but I can't ignore it any longer. I use my page to keep notes on various article works in progress as well as personal info, so I really need it unprotected. Could you please unprotect my page? Thank you in advance. -- Dragon695 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I was rude to refer to your "characteristic personal attacks" and to "nonsense" and "trolling". I apologise unreservedly for this.
Wikipedia really could do without further unproductive interactions, so I'll continue trying not to respond to your edits, which I find singularly provocative, and which you have admitted are based on assumption of bad faith. -- Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what's going on here. It looks like you're posting civility warnings to his talk page, but after he removed them you keep re-adding them. What's the point of this? If he removed the message, it's a pretty safe bet that he saw them. What do you seek to accomplish by making sure they stay on the page? -- Ryan Delaney talk 03:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Meh. When will I learn about asking Tito to chip in? ^_^
I will, however, defer to the wiser heads who have chipped in (and Lar, too) and approach Tony only indirectly as much as I can. That being said, surely there is a place for polite discussion of a perceived problem, and I'd like that discussion to continue here. Will someone tell me I'm wrong in feeling that Tony is an aggressive editor, is dismissive of criticism, and that tumult follows in his wake? That I'm wrong to feel that this is not good for Wikipedia? brenneman {L} 06:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you wrong? No. But (and this is a change in how I perceive how things ought to be from where I was 3 or 6 months ago, as I've grokked more of the wikiway) there is a need for aggressive editing, within reason, for it is how policy gets reshaped, how the parameters of what we do change, how the wiki grows. Too aggressive is not good but Bold-Revert-Discuss depends on aggressive editors being, well, aggressive (bold). That may not be quite the meaning of aggressive you mean, I realise. As for dismissive of criticism, that too has merit, up to a point... to be too sensitive of criticism is to not be willing to do the right thing (again, I think Tony, and you, and I, and others, may go too far in that dismissal sometimes). And as for tumult, that just seems to go with the first two. Tumult follows in your wake and my wake too after all... (cont'd)
So, all that said, is that a free pass for Tony, or for you, or for me? No. But it is something to think about. There is no denying that Tony does what he does because he thinks it is for the good of the encyclopedia. And if he's the very prow of the icebreaker in coursing a new path, if his actions seem rash and intemperate and ignoring all rules... that's not necessarily completely or even mostly bad. Someone has to be the lightning rod, and maybe it's a good thing this particular lightning rod is so strong and able to take so much heat. And you know he's almost always right about stuff too. Not always, but often enough that I've come to think that reflexively resisting or questioning is not a good strategy (not that you're reflexivly doing that... but you know me, I paint in black and white for the sake of analogy when the world is actually gray)... All that said, could he be more civil? Does he have a blind spot and tend to view your actions with undue scrutiny? Sure. I didn't say he was perfect. And I'll keep pointing out where I think he went too far, of course. + + Lar: t/ c 14:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
When I look back over the recent past, and the large and small-scale changes the have come down the pipe, three stand out to me. Two I was close to (mediumish ones) and one I had nothing to do with (a huge one.) These are 1) VfU -> DRv 2) WP:COMIC -> WP:WEB and 3) PROD.
In every case, it was a combination of a lot of groundwork, wide ranging discussion, bold (but not agressive) editing, and patience and flexibility in the aftermath. Steve Block, Radiant!, Encephelon, these are all editors who have worked to lead policy. They've grabbed on with both hands and rode.
Without being rude. brenneman {L} 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added myself to the category, and left talk page comments supporting my own stricter standard (one WPian substantively claiming admin abuse.) "Captain Beefheart"? :) What's your tipple of choice over on the other side of the world? Must be good stuff! :D In praise of your leadership, Xoloz 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
PS. 126K talk page, just so you know. Archive time?
Perhaps we're going in the same direction here, or perhaps not, but I created this idea for a community-based desysopping process (yes, I know, a perennially rejected proposal and all that, but this is just an idea, I'm not publicizing yet, that I think would satisfy both the people calling for a process, and those who are currently afraid it's unworkable). I'd appreciate input. Dmcdevit· t 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It sucks. I wish you would put your energy to use creating content instead of metaplaying around and trying to destroy it. Grace Note 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
66% surely isn't a consensus, not even close to my usual minimum of 70%. I would have appreciated that the editor actually contacted me first, and I guess I wouldn't be re-opening this AfD anytime soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Antichrist is a mess. Serious external link infestation. Convert to Cite, purge the noise. - brenneman {L} 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Aaron. I read your comments at WP:signature, and just wanted to say that I also have never had a problem with signature length, and I don't understand why it's an issue at all. I guess I just needed to express my bewilderment to someone. So that's just a bit of support for you. See ya on the flip side. -- F a ng Aili 說嗎? 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! -- M e rovingian { T C @} 23:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If User A has edited from 128.0.0.2, 128.0.0.5, 128.0.0.7 and 128.0.0.3, and User B, with similar interests and abuses edits from 128.0.0.4, autoblocking would be overly agressive, but it's an obvious sockpuppet, much like I am! Clarifier 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
why did you remove the entire references section from the Astral projection article Facto 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I apologize for making such accusations...it's just frustrating that the article was ever conceived of being written in the first place. Adam Bishop 15:54, 26 May 2006 to 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I really wasn't that worried about it...I'd much rather have people say about my posts, "This isn't ANI worthy" than other alternatives such as "Why in the world did you do this block?" :o) I'll still post on the stuff that I feel is potentially worthy, and as my experience level goes up, I'm sure the severity of what I consider potentially worthy will likely go up as well. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I see you removed the "cultural references" section of the Psychokinesis article. These sections, often entitled "In popular culture," have been out of control of late and have become dumping grounds for inclusion of unreferenced items and displays of personal knowledge of anime, etc. But, was this just an act of boldness on your part, or is there an emerging consensus that these sections ought to go?
I ask this because, well, see Statue of Liberty for example... I don't have the guts to pull the trigger on this one myself, though. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Archive.org is not a commercial website. Please see creativecommons.org Archive.org is how you publish your cc'ed work to the net... The external link I put was not a commercial link but academic research I found recently Towsonu2003 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will go expand on the vote, it just seems incredibly cruel to make a game off the requirements to survive on the streets. That and it looks dodgy. Thank you for the warm fuzzy vibes, they are warm and fuzzy.
I suck at couplets, especially on Sundays. I would fall back on my new favourite insult, "I would say you were great, but I'm in the pedia." Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Brenny, and NO thank you for your LACK OF comments (despite my saving you a place and everything, personal health is SUCH A WEAK EXCUSE!!) in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again! + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies articles?... Are you an accountable admin?... |
The pain! My secret shame writ large, and in garish colours even! *sob*
brenneman
{L}
16:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for major overhaul of the Kate Moss entry. However I am surprised that you deleted the Trivia section, since I saw these on many other entries for persons. -- Pmkpmk 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
G'day Aaron,
you're right ... that was a big call. For what it's worth, I agree with what you've done. The debate was irreparably tainted by the refactoring work very early on, and I think a clean slate is necessary. Cheers, fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 04:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your assessment is accurate. The sudden interest in this esoteric musical subject would be most welcome, under other, more constructive (rather than destructive) circumstances. You are not the first editor to express an apparent antipathy for certain aspects of this culture, particularly as regards the notability of its practitioners. Such controversies have gotten rather heated in the past, a fact which does perplex me to no small extent. What is boils down to is that it seems so pointless to so massively delete others' content, which was arrived at over months, if not years of very painstaking research and editing by editors knowledgeable about the subject. I do not do so to others' content unless it is wrong information. Thanks and best, Badagnani 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Oy. Maybe list it for peer review? It does seem to have a large number of pics, but there is also a large amount of text to go with them. I have to wonder about the copyright status of a lot of those pics, though. Especially the collage at the top. User:Zoe| (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Aaron, *sigh* doesn't quite encapsulate the frustration that many are feeling. Apart from the obvious expletives, the four words that spring to mind are: bang, head, brick, and wall. Unfortunately, neither side shows signs of becoming bored and going away - we will be "celebrating" the 1st anniversary of the userbox wars come New Year 2007 I fear. Who knows when this will end? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to know there are voices of reason out there. And let me know when you have a draft policy in place to implement the *boing button*, I will be one of the first in line to support it. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Happy to be an intermediary if it helps [1]. But it probably wont and the boxes aren't worth it anyway. -- Doc ask? 23:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That's all. :) - Will Beback 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)