User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/13

I see you proposed this for deletion instead of a speedy. Interesting note on the deletion template:

"Please use PROD only on articles or file description pages."

Does this process still apply to articles after they've been moved to a user subpage? – The Parting Glass 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too noticed that huge lettering. ^_^ Prod appears to be a very clever little template. At one stage I regularly turned speedy requests into userspace prods if I considered that the article was unlikely to be improved, but wanted to give the author the chance regardless. As here, I wanted to avoid having it hang around in article space if the editor never returns. Really, it's still an "article" in the common usage, despite Wikipedia's terms of art regarding what lives in what space.

Of course, a

proposed deletion

may be painlessly removed by any but the primary authors, so if you think it's a bad idea feel free.

brenneman 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page archiving method makes it difficult to tell whether you've removed sections, in addition to archiving, as you've made significant edits after moving. I suppose I have to assume you know what you're doing. I don't know if your edits on those page constitute massive blanking or reasoned editing. On the other hand, your edit on

My method of archiving is the bog-standard move. I thought everything there was pretty transparent, but I'm welcome to input if it wasn't. The only edits I made after archiving were housekeeping, and clearly labelled as such:

• Talk:Fuck/Archive 5 ‎ (header swap)
• Talk:Groupie/Archive 1 ‎ (→Apple Scruffs book quote request: moving recent back to main page)

Are these the edits you were referring to?

With respect to not you not being "sure" about these edits, again I thought I was being totally transparent:

• The new section I added to talk:fuck (I've removed some guff, but there's heaps more that should go.)
• The new section I added to talk:groupie (For something to merit inclusion it should provide aid in the broad understanding of the subject to a lay-reader.)

I'm not seeing any attempt by you to discuss these edits on the respective talk pages of those articles, and I'm not totally convinved that you're really trying to discuss them here. Which is a nice segue to what this appears to actually be about...

I'll take the remainder of this to the

own

articles.

If I've misread this, I'm happy to be corrected.

brenneman 23:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your comments are definately not transparent, and your edits are so complex that I can't tell if what you're doing is what you say you're doing. I can name at least two admins who do not tell the whole truth about their edits, but I don't know if you're in that category.

As for Million, I suppose an alternative proposal is to split the number-ish articles on large round numbers (each) into an article about that number and an article about the number-range, but deleting the information from

million without putting it elsewhere is revertable blanking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

brenneman 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to welcome you on board.

Thank you. - brenneman 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

Hi there. I would like to request clarification on your decision to delete the article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?. Firstly, per my scanning of the debate there was more support to retain the material than there was to delete it, so I don’t understand your interpretation of “rough consensus”. Secondly, while the article was technically imperfect the idea all along was to merge the material with Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and a strong percentage of the comments supported that merger. However forces hostile to the airing of this material blocked that article and made that merger impossible – has this been taken into account? Thirdly, I don’t understand your reference to the Great Sphinx section – it seemed to me to be factually correct and balanced – please could you clarify what concerned you and how it should preferably have been worded? In addition, may I ask for your continued involvement with the parent Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, where certain editors have for years been censoring an important aspect of the discussion on a range of technicalities. If this can be corrected then the Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? issue would be redundant. Thanking you in anticipation for your speedy response. Wdford (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to discuss this. There was consensus that the material was good, but the article was not. It was stated explicitly by several editors that this article was created due to problems editors in the other article had in working together. It's a textbook deletion reason. The Sphinx example showed that these were to some degree even competing articles.

The creation of this article was, in short, a really bad idea. But one that I can totally sympathise with.

The only question was should it be userfied or deleted outright, really. In a less contentious article I'd have moved it into someone's userspace and kept an eye on it, hoping for improvement. But that would actually decrease the need for editors on the AErc page to work and play well with others.

brenneman 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes perfect sense. I have the full article in my sandbox, so the material is not lost. However the initial problem was that some editors were refusing to allow this material into the AErc article, citing some ancient consensus (currently much disputed) that the AErc article is intended only to report the history of the debate, not the detail of the debate. Those of us who worked on the deleted article were happy to merge, but the so-called scope restriction was making that impossible. Unless the scope at AErc is broadened, the problem remains.

What are the rules for setting the scope of an article, and what authority do those editors have to squeeze the scope down - surely we can allocate a section of a broader article to meet their needs while adding the other material around it? If they continue to delete the extra material every time its added in, then we have no choice but to create a supplementary article, and then we are back where we started.

Your guidance would be very much appreciated. Wdford (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you just copy/pasted it? <facepalm> I wish you hadn't said that about having the whole article in your sandbox. You're not supposed to do that. It raises all sorts of problems with the

GFDL

license. The material isn't lost when deleted, just hidden. I can see it just fine, and the list of contributors (which we have to keep, legally) is preserved.

The scope as you say is set by

WP:CONSENSUS

. The best place to discuss this, however, is on the AErc section. And the best way to do that is not to talk about other editors at all. Pretend they don't exist, only talk about thier edits. As if they just appeared by magic.

Have some faith and some patience, and I'm confident we can reach a situation where we're all equally unhappy.

brenneman 12:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll strip the material out of the sandbox ASAP. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian race controversy 2

Thanks, if you're still willing to take it up I'll leave it to you. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you're an admin, huh? And you're taking the hand-off -- from Moreschi to Zara to Harrison to you. I get the feeling I may have left someone out.... Oh, yeah! How could I forget that bundle of collegial, warm and fuzzy love, dBachmann?!!! lol (I don't know about you, but, hey, I'm at least crackin' myself up over here....)

Oh, yeah. The reason for my visit. You left me a note about your involvement at the above article, so I wanted you to visit here[1] and weigh in on the proposed lead. I assume/hope you've had a chance to follow the discussion about the language that is currently in place. A lot of us think it sux. Your questions, comments/critique and vote would be welcome. Trying to get the article unlocked and moving along constructively. deeceevoice (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Aaron, if you're looking for a reason for Harrison's banning of me, then I've got a pretty plausible one.[[2]] It's not justification, but it sure as hell is a plausible motive. He's been pretty snarky at my criticism of him for shutting down the article without any real need. The fact is, if he were seriously concerned about article disruption, then he would have banned Zara. But, hey, she's an admin and, from what I can determine, of a similar ideological bent as he, dBachmann and Moreschi. So, we all know that wasn't gonna happen -- even though the fact of the matter is that it was Zara who closed the article, putting an "in use" (or something) tag on it, making massive reverts and changes without consulting the other editors (all I did was try to break a logjam and, based on talk page discussion, take a stab at redoing the lead), and trying to push the other editors around a la Moreschi and, later, a la Bachmann. Now, that was disruptive.

All I did was revert her sweeping changes and then start to work on cleaning up/fixing a terribly wrong-headed and POV two- or three-sentence lead paragraph (about which there had been considerable grumbling on the talk page) and then moving around the text that had been in place in accordance with my revision. There was no attempt on my part to advance, in the article main space, one POV on another on my part. And I did this with an explanation on the talk page (something Zara didn't even see fit to bother with).

Everyone involved at the article at the time knows this ban is a load of crap. What you've got is an admin gaming the system to do whatever the hell he wants. Too many admins aren't accustomed to criticism from the lowly lumpen, or to editors who don't grovel in their presence once threatened. And I simply don't/won't shuffle for anyone. If someone steps to me with snippiness, they often will get responded to in kind. And the only way these folks can deal with an opposing viewpoint is to try to get the editor content-banned -- by any means necessary. (Zara earlier in the talk page discussion brands me a "troll" -- another favorite tactic -- and calls for someone -- anyone -- to ban me.) This nonsense really needs to stop if the project is to have any credibility whatsoever.

At any rate, I'm working on a deadline all day, so I won't have any time for this. And I certainly don't have any patience with it. I appreciate everyone's efforts, inquiries in my behalf, but it doesn't seem as though reason is any match for this cabal of determined, POV-pushing, autocratic admins, who've been allowed to pretty much do as they will at the project for a very, very, very long time.

And shame on the project for allowing it. deeceevoice (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians race controversy 3

Araon the page protect for this article has been lifted because Tom is no longer looking after the article ,i will ask that is be put back as per there is no clear consensus on the talk page as per the scope of the article or lead for the article has been established and the article has the history of edit wars thanks--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My take is different: there is no consensus, but no obvious edit-warring and no disruption either. If an article had to be locked down every time there is a content dispute for the duration of the dispute, most Wikipedia articles would be locked down a significant amount of the time. I suggest to wait and see. The protection can always be put back if disruption resumes.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may like to add disruption might have already started because the lead is up before the scope has been defined--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read

WP:DISRUPT. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest you see the history of the article(i.e the article has a viotile history and should be given a short leash) also jumping the gun and making changes when established editors to the article raised serious questions that could be construed as disruptions that !!!!"MIGHT"!!!! have already started--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rephrase, I can't make sense of what you're trying to say, quite honestly.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron started a thread on the lead,

talk) 18:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh wow ramdrake, wapondaponda additions to the article without there being some sort of consensus have just be reverted by another editor see that is why i asked back for the the protection, but i was way off base right--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know Zara's MO, she was basically responsible for getting the article protected last time. I wouldn't be surprised if that's her intention now. I won't edit war, but all I can say is there was a straw poll and based on it the, the majority were for modifying lead. I made changes in accordance with the straw poll, which Zara has reverted. Currently Zara and Wikiscribe don't have any coherent direct arguments. I don't exactly know why, but my opinion is simply a delaying tactic.

talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikiscribe, reverting is fine, edit-warring isn't. I certainly have no intention of reverting again as I sort of agree the lead needs some more polishing. However I do feel the lede Zara reverted from was the "least bad" of the two, but I can certainly live with the current situation if it means preventing the article from being protected.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis removed for now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - brenneman 12:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for clarifying that. It was a case of a simple misunderstanding. I'm sorry if I was being overly sensitive. Cheers. Alun (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roejoe1/Online Dating Service (edit | [[Talk:User:Roejoe1/Online Dating Service|talk]] | history | links | watch | logs) (no longer deleted)

Copied from B. Wind's talk

Hello. The above is the text from a deleted contribution that you de-

As nicely as possible, this appears to have been an ill-thought out edit.

1. There was clear commentary (by me) on the relevent user's talk page regarding this article's lifespan. You did not make any comment there. Or on my talk page, for that matter.
2. This article had already had a speedy tag applied and removed, by me again. Finally,
3. The "this is not an article" argument is, well, wonky. It's an article, it just happens to be in user space, resting.

Please either use more caution in the future, or take more time to communicate. It's terribly

brenneman 07:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That probably wasn't actually "as nicely as possible." Sometimes I sound like I've got a cork stuck up me. Sorry. - brenneman 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End section copied from B. Wind's talk.

Please observe a little

underconstruction}} tag instead), it would not have resulted in the page popping up for someone on prod patrol to see it and act on it. Best wishes and good luck. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

brenneman 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that protecting an active proposal over an edit war that had seen no action in six hours is a useful or appropriate thing to do, and have undone your protection. Please be more careful with administrative tools in the future.

Re: the unprotection[3] Phil Sandifer is deeply involved in this edit war, and has the most contributions on this page.

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes

states that:

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators."

Is the same policy in effect with page protections?

talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

But you're correct, Ikip: this policy also applies to page protections. It's especially egregious in that Phil's edit's started the back-and-forth and that he failed to use the article talk page section I created to discuss the protection.

I grow increasingly concerned about Phil's overall editting, and think that a request for comment is probably inevitable.

brenneman 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to

User_talk:Wapondaponda#Moving_forward

Since you've chosen to redirect this to

Yes, I'd intended for that to happen as well. Just give me a few minutes. - brenneman 13:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:09, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Now at

deletion review to have them check my work. - brenneman

13:17, 8 February 2009

I'm not sure what you mean is more complex than you remember. The article looks ok in my userspace at first glance. Could you please clarify? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:19, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the process was much more complex than last time (years ago) that I did that kind of restoration. Lots more buttons to push and options to tick. As long as everything worked out fine in the end. - brenneman 13:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Looks good to me so far. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:39, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I'm not trying to do your job, and I think you're doing a very good DR job, especially given the circumstances. I thought that just maybe I'd give a shot at trying to make both DCV and Zara realize that the way both are going at this dispute isn't the most production given from the viewpoint of another editor involved in the dispute. Cheers!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey, if only someone else would do the job! ^_^ Thank you though, I'm not at all precious about my edits. (Ok, that's a lie, sometimes I am but I usually get over it right after I hit "save" on the snarky message.) I agree though, that we need to get people talking about edits. Any smoothing is good smoothing. - brenneman 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and I'm already involved; otherwise, I'd definitely offer to help. I already have a couple dozen cats at home, so I'm familiar with appeasing catfights... ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Rrr-rrrra-AAA-aaaawrrrr!" Ramdrake, you little, sexist piggy, you! lol (What on earth are you doing with so many cats?!!! Are you one of those crazy cat (man-)ladies? ;) )

Actually, I just dropped by to make sure there are no hard feelings about my, ... uh ... assessment of how you (Aaron) handled the latest dust-up. It's not meant to be mean-spirited. deeceevoice (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Zara has asked for full page protection? [Not! (an update)]

This is precisely what happened last time. Let's not. I have no problem with her reverting the article to where it was before Wapondaponda's edits. (I would have done it instead of simply reverting her edits had I realized what Wapondaponda had done beforehand.) But a full page protection is unwarranted at the moment. What is this? She doesn't get her way, so the article gets locked down? Not good! deeceevoice (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I jumped the gun after reading her edit note here.[4] While she went back to AN/I, she didn't ask for immediate protection. She merely threatened that she would do it if she doesn't get her way with regard to the article scope. deeceevoice (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was so predictable. Zara has been angling for a total lock-down for a while now, and finally she's coming out in the open. There has been lots of discussion on the scope, as you can clearly see from the talk-page, and there has been input which suggests the scope must honour the title and any restricted focus as suggested by Zara would be POV. There has been an emerging consensus, namely to have an unlimited scope, that Zara doesn't agree with. Therefore, like before, she goes back to her tried and trusted tactics of mass-reverting and calling for lock-downs. When she says she thinks we need more discussion, what she means is that she wants everyone to do it her way, and any consensus that does not go her way will obviously "need more discussion". She has a long history of such petulance - check her record please. "More discussion" is not going to solve anything, as a lot of people want a broad scope and Zara wants to push her "Afrocentrism Rules" POV. Neither side is going to yield, so if admin is not prepared to honour the majority then this article should be deleted completely, and the debate housed somewhere else. To grant her a lock-down would be to reward disruptive behaviour - how can admin allow an article to be held hostage? Wdford (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read her latest comments at AN/I, if you haven't. They're very telling -- all about what she "cannot allow." As soon as she sees the conversation developing in a direction with which she disagrees, she's off to try: 1) to bring in yet another admin, then comes back threatening to get the article protected or locked down for three months -- if she doesn't get her way. She's spending more time at AN/I trying to justify a total lockdown of the article than explaining her edits/intentions/actions in the article talk space. This is not constructive behavior. deeceevoice (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the editors on the page have exercised a lot of patience and have been very respectful of the article's probation status. I think it is inappropriate to try to exploit this probation status by calling for protection of the article, in this case a certain preferred version.

talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know how long this[5] will last, but at least we have the opportunity to write an article without the constant obstruction and disruption. If we don't make a decent article, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. It shows promise, but it still needs a lot of work -- and lots of clean-up. But we'll see how this all shakes out -- and how much time we have to actually work in relative peace.

Aaron, I haven't seen you around the article lately. Are you still with us? deeceevoice (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Still here. Things have just bit a bit intense in my neighborhood. - brenneman 09:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Zeitgeist: Addendum. I think the entire conspiracy theory stuff is crap, but do feel the article can be made worthy of wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I just realized you did so to another editor's workspace. I'll "borrow" it from there. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaking Zeitgeist Addendum

Hello, my name's Brandon.

I see that recently the wikipage for Addendum was deleted, allegedly on the premise that it didn't have enough factual resources of credibility.

I'm new with using Wiki and do not know the policies, but I was told I should probably ask you on the case.

I am wanting to recreate the addendum page for the wiki, though I will redo it, and will be careful to cite sources and such. I hope to hear back from you soon :)

For the record, I will not concentrate on the "conspiracy theory crap" side of things from the documentary.

Thanks,

brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That two-week-old unsupported accusation is still listed as "pending." If the search for evidence is ongoing, how much more time will you need? Was restoring one link, three years ago, on my second day on Wikipedia all you were able to find? If the search is over, would you care to retract that accusation? Generally, good practice requires finding support for an accusation before making it. To do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of good faith. If one was wrong, one should be man enough to admit it. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be brief: You're wasting my time. Rather than linking to an old diff for dramatic effect, just actualy read the responses I made at the section on your talk. Since your last edit to that conversation I had seen included the edit summary "please go" I was actually trying to be respectful of your wishes.

You're chronically unwilling (or incapable, but the difference is moot) to abide by our core content guidelines. You're quick to attack, unwilling to compromise, and appear to have the ability to hold a grudge for even the slightest of percieved insults literally for years. To be frank, I'd have thought that having me ignore you and the woefully biased and unsourced articles you frequent would have been a blessing.

I am now fully reminded of their existance, and of yours.

brenneman 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am in the process of trying to get Actano Rplan restored (http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=ACTANO_RPlan_%28deleted_23_Jun_2008_at_06:29%29). I am new registered user to wikipedia, but I have used it as a reference.

I have been researching why it was deleted and I still wasn't real clear I know it had something to do with notability. I would appreciate if you could restore the page. Additionally, I would appreciate any guidance you can give to have the page better conform to the guidelines. Thanks Jasonfilmfan (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brenneman, I am an Italian Wikipedia writer. I have choosed your name from the administrator list (maybe I'm doing some error in english) because your name seems me nice. I only wanted ask you if I can translate an english article into an Italian Article. I don't know if I can so I have decided to ask to an american/british user. If you will want contact me, you have to go to the Italian Wikipedia and you have to search the discussion page of Domyinik. Then you push the "+" botton to insert a new comment. Thank you for the attention and for the kindness (I don't know absolutely if this word exist). Goodbye and forgive me for my english errors: I'm doing the grade 4 of Trinity Spoken English so I cannot still speak english very well. Now, really goodbye. --Domyinik (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Only one last thing: remember, if you can, go to visit Italian Wikipedia: it is very nice and there are many wonderful articles.[reply]

In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).

Sunset2007b (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the old days. You outlasted me, old friend. Keep up the good fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.174.153 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't edited in a while, but leaving you this note anyway. Not sure if you were aware, but there is currently a community discussion of a draft of the arbitration policy. Back in January, I promised I'd make sure the issue of expedited motions was discussed, so I've started a discussion section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aaron Brenneman/Archives,

• Hrair pillars Wikipedia
• Make article
• Help!
• Help, help!
• Make article bigger
• Er... what this for..? How write picky ?

Hope little user enjoy and edit smart like

Welcome back Secret ^account 05:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your name's a blast from the past.... hope you're good, and popping in for all the right reasons :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oooh, it's brenneman! (-: — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back! Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a familiar name scrolling through my watchlist… welcome back!

cool stuff) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I just noticed your question to me here when I saw JzG's comment quoted in the Signpost. It probably should have been a post to the Village Pump rather than AN, but other than that, I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said in the thread.--Chaser (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - brenneman 07:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just noticed that you're back. Welcome back. Corvus cornix_talk 08:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I had to rub my eyes to believe it. It's good to see your name again.   Will Beback  talk  11:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your name back on my watchlist, Aaron. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it is best practice to ask permission to move the comments of other editors from user to main space. Please do not do it again without asking. This is just a notice, so no reply is needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I will disregard this notice. There was clear consensus for the move. - brenneman 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you are wrong, and you violated best practices (behaviorial guidelines) in two instances, particularly

WP:OWNTALK ("the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user"). Continuing to ignore best practice is exactly why the user warnings were made on the talk page. My comments are about a continuing pattern of user behavior and should not have been moved to the article talk page without my express permission per best practices. So, please remove my comments from the article talk page, comments that I did not myself put there. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Goodness.

1. It clearly says in the guideline you quote that moving to change the meaning is unnacceptable. The meaning isn't changed.
2. There was rough consensus that your statement on the user talk page was misplaced. If you had concerns about the sourcing on the article, the place to start would have been to clearly articluate those concerns on the aricle talk page. As I have done.
3. In refactoring I have clearly marked that the edits were on another page, I have clearly marked where the moved edits ended, I have used meaningful edit summaries, and I have explicitly noted in the talk that I moved the thread.
4. I will not be removing your comments, although you are of course free to do so. Please remember that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." etc.

brenneman 04:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You moved my comment to an article talk page, which changes its meaning, as my comments were in regards to user behavior not content, and properly made on the user talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments that should have gone on the article talk page

You may want to file a RS noticeboard report, as your recent comments on

I will not respond to these comments further. Please use article talk. - brenneman 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond on the talk page at all, because I am only interested in user conduct, not content disputes. So, you will find me on the proper user talk pages and noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me understand this: You're concerned enough about sources in an article enough to warn the user, but not concerned enought to discuss the actual sources? - brenneman 04:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to understand. My specific concern here is with the continual creation of poorly sourced articles by Wnt.[6] I have brought this up with him several times. My broader concern is with groups of editors like Wnt, relying on WikiLeaks documents as primary sources for Wikipedia articles. These concerns are one and the same and are being discussed over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Use of classified documents, with a list of older discussions about this subject in the header for you to review. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see from your recent contributions that you're concerned about his approach. That's very clear. The problem is, you're not doing enough homework to support your position. Just because you don't like what someone is doing at

Foo doesn't mean that you can cut corners in complaining about what they do at Bar

.

• You have concerns about an article's sources, you simply must use the article talk page as the first point of call. If for no other reason than to alert other editors of the article to your concerns.
• Your comment/warning to W was vauge and hand-wavy. We can use primary sourcing in an article, and there are secondary sources there. He's done enough to make it a tenable article. You have to actually take the time to demonstrate where he's wrong. And simple saying "you're wrong" several times is not enough.

brenneman 04:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken and misinformed. This is the second article that Wnt has added unsourced and/or poorly sourced content into based on primary WikiLeaks cables. My concern is solely with this pattern of behavior, and I've expressed my concerns about user behavior on the noticeboards.[7] This is specific, particular, and focused on the topic. There is not a single thing "vague and hand-wavy" about it. I realize that you haven't had time to review the discussions or the reliable source guidelines, but arguing from ignorance isn't much of an argument. Feel free to correct yourself, especially in regards to your claim that "there are secondary sources there". Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being rude on purpose? Because it appears to me that you are. You've been snarky, deleted my request on your talk for you to be nicer with another rude message and now this meesage?

I am sorry for having to say this, but I'm afraid I'm going to ignore any further comments from you on my talk page. You appear incapable at this time to discuss the matter in a civil manner.

brenneman 04:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was not my intent to upset you. Please accept my apologies. However, you must admit, there is nothing ruder or more uncivil that deleting comments by another editor without their permission. Have a great night. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, just a heads-up that user talk pages aren't meant to be deleted; individual posts can be deleted if problematic, but not the whole thing. User pages are a different matter though; they can be deleted on user request. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if Slim is referring to the same talk page that concerns me, but I notice that your talk page was deleted by you under

WP:MfD. However, they usually are not deleted without good reason, as their contents are regarded as a useful record of prior transactions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the feedback, but this seems like a somewhat of a non-issue to me:

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Done, thanks.

WP:CSD#U1 is, of course, policy, and it says, (formatting omitted) "In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." Since they can't be deleted under U1, and since you indicate you don't mind, I've restored yours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for doing that. -
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hi. While reviewing ANI today, the section concerning the Political prisoner page caught my eye. I noticed there that you had deleted an IP talk page under the same policy. In accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy ("If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately."), I have restored it now as well. An MfD may be appropriate if the talk page needs to be deleted for some special reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the use of rollback feature on user talk pages (I have raised your block threat within that thread/topic). The thread is Ryulong's inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you. —Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. - brenneman 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Courcelles|ts=10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)}}

Talkback

{{talkback|Courcelles|ts=10:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)}}

Ditto. Courcelles 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved to

Talk:Vaporizer_(cannabis)#Radiation_vaporizer_picture_removal

Sorry to have missed responding to this. As it related directly to the article in question, I have moved discussion there. -

{{talkback|Bidgee|Away from ANI}} Bidgee (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Bidgee's talk page

Hi Aaron, this is to inform you that I have left you a message on Bidgee's talk page. Please feel free to delete this comment when read. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of Talk:Public relations

Hi Aaron, article talk pages shouldn't be archived by moving the history, as it makes things harder to find. Would you mind undoing the move to Talk:Public relations/Archive01? Article talk should be archived by cutting and pasting, and it's best to leave it to the bot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I went ahead and did it so you don't have to use the tools, and I've added the bot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Points for being forward, I like a

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Re this, you can't act as an admin at Political prisoner, Aaron, because you're involved. In general I'd advise you to hold back a bit for a few weeks until you're up to speed with the current culture. Things have changed a lot since you were an active admin, most of them for the better. People have different expectations of admins; things that were done before are now not considered good practice. It can take a while to catch up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, mam, I always like hearing from you. Since (on this rare occasion) we're not in complete accord, I've placed a request for public input

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

One of the things that Wikipedia is susceptible to is Groupthink behaviour. And you're doing it now... I'm at ANI trying to have calm reasoned discussion supported by actual facts and evidence. That's not happening, instead lazy commentary (like yours, forgive me for saying) is taking the place of thinking. Please let me take a moment to unpack your comment here...

1. You're opinion that I "badly blocked" a user in not one I share. You may notice that there is reasoned commentary in support of the on ANI, although there is clearly no consensus on it.
2. You're also wrong about the archive as well. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page where it says that cut and paste is "generally preferred." It doesn't say "don't use page move." Slim has a different opinion on how to archive a page, she's welcome to that opinion.
3. You're wrong about the smiley as well. Did you look at the page history before you commented, or did you just make a best guess based on a few comments you'd seen here and there?

You're comment, in total, is almost exactly the same as every other comment regarding me being "up to speed." It's ill-informed, is not supported in either practice or black-letter, and has very little basis in fact at all.

I'm sure it's very convenient to have an excuse to denigrate someone's actions, but "You're very new" is not the same as "I have a different opinion than you."

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries, lets agree to differ then, perhaps I am as you suggest, wrong about everything, and you are doing fantastic, best of luck to you.

Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahh, that was fast!

1. I like explicit, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Greaves, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event are what we're discussing here.
2. One of the most infuriating things here is how inconsistantly we apply decisions.
3. Going to look at the article now...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That article is an interesting one, that's for sure. But, and this was one of the main problems with the PGreaves debate, is that the difference between "the event" and "the person" can be subtle. Not that subtle here, actually, as the article could just as easily be titled "Selection of the 11th Panchen Lama" with "Gedhun Choekyi Nyima" a re-direct with almost no editing required.

In the PGreaves case, the decision had already been made that the majority of the content with respect to the written work did not merit an article. This takes the knees out of a redirect from PG to an article about the book itself. Some^[who?] have already stated that that decision should be revisited, and at this stage that would be approach I'd recommend to an editor who felt that this material was "encyclopedic."

Always happy to chat more, of course. Either about the specific articles, or about the general principle.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

In general, articles about political prisoners never cover only one event. They cover the initial activity that makes someone stand out from the crowd (the "political" part), and then the governmental action taken against them (the "prisoner" part). And people always want to know what happened to that person afterward, and sometimes will protest or file constitutional lawsuits on his behalf, which is really a third event. This is crudely acknowledged in the policies you cite, which say that a "high profile individual" subject to ongoing news coverage should have an article.

In the Greaves case, the first AfD was held after an initial wave of publicity about Amazon.com's removal of the book. This initial news cycle died down, and then a second cycle emerged regarding his prosecution by Florida for obscenity for selling one copy of the book. In the AfD I did not seriously think anyone could claim that those were the same event, because aside from having the book in common, they are completely unrelated stories. And the prosecution really isn't all about the book - you don't see the Florida prosecutor dragging the executives of Amazon.com into court for selling it, because they're well defended and more sympathetic to an audience. Greaves, on the other hand, is easily viewed as a bad man, and thus offers a good opportunity to set a bad legal precedent.

My desire to see this story covered in full as it unfolds is not purely theoretical. I was just involved in an endless, endless effort to work out some kind of consensus about sexual content issues at Commons:Commons:Sexual content, in which a major issue regarded whether people thought that Florida was likely to make unreasonable obscenity prosecutions against Wikipedia. I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, but frankly I don't believe anyone can predict that sort of action. What's certain is that it would be useful for Wikipedia to allow itself to keep track of what is going on legally in that state, so that we know if the orcs are on the march before we're watching video of them loading up the servers in a flatbed truck and hauling them off for evidence. Now of course this doesn't carry special weight in choosing what articles to cover, but my point is, this isn't purely some flash of media publicity, but a serious and relevant ongoing political issue. Publishers of all sorts, not just Wikipedia, are going to have to watch and decide whether to be cowed into reevaluating each and every written work they carry, or to commit themselves to fighting to preserve the First Amendment. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why you have moved my comments?

Did the large explanation I offered while doing so not answer this question? I mean that only in the most literal sense, not in any sort of sarcastic one. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, reverted. I see. But then, your comment is back where it was, so I'm still confused... -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you say why you moved them? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, again: I said why in the edit. Did you not examine my edits before reverting them? -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry I do not understand what you meant when you wrote "change I've made to the template: Out out, damn admin-only discussion!"

talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Aaron, could you explain here why you moved other people's comments? No references to posts elsewhere, please, because had it been clear, people wouldn't be asking you. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this really irritating.

1. In the edit where i move them is clearly says "I looked at the supporting debate for the "admin only discussion" section and there was no consensus for this type of split debate, and the stated reasons for having it are supported by the change I've made to the template."
2. The bottom section says (at the time of the edit) "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators who perform an enforcement action. Comments by others will be moved to the section above."

How is there any ambiguity there?

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Removed_link_to_essay_low_profile_individuals_in_reference

Thanks for the message, I moved it to the guideline talk page, as split discussions are to be avoided. -

This edit [8] and your tone is not appreciated at all. Do not tell me how I have to edit when my edits are both in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and do not come to my talk page issuing warnings if I did nothing wrong. Stepopen (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't the proper place to discuss you edits to the article and its talk, suffice it to say that you had, in my opinion as an administrator, done something wrong. (The proper place would be the aforementioned talk pages, of course.) I have re-examined your contribution to Talk:Political_prisoner again, and if anything it is your tone that I find lacking:

• "In a nutshell, your request is very unreasonable. Cheers." This was totally uncalled for. A bit rude, and for no reason but for that you disagreed with me.
• "The claims in the article were not supported by this source - period." Not only untrue, as one of the sources did explicitly use the words political prisoner, but also again a bit rude.

Further, your "tone" here is adversarial and uncalled for. I'd strongly suggest that you review the

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

your edit at secret law abounds
with noble intentions, confounds. 
obfuscation of orig author's meaning rankles
my cankles.

omg thanks for suggesting couplets eventhough I can't really do them right.

No, that was perfect. "Cankles" in particular was awfsome. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You weren't Voice of All at one point, were you? NW (Talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but my stock answer is an evasive one: What makes you think that, and why would you care?

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) we're talking about, rought?[reply

]

Was just curious :)

And apparently the link answers it for me—he renamed to Aaron Schulz. Not sure why I didn't think of checking the redirect. I think I should go to bed now. NW (Talk) 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have read about me. Before the memory loss I was Wm5200, now I try to post as The Pluton. You may be interested in my P.O.V. section --you owe me-- (I was listening to a Chris Isaak song) and --"Out" of where?-- (if you sense anger, multiply by a million). Thank you for your open mind, but please be careful, I'm dangerous. You may want to disappear this. John D. Earhart64.107.148.131 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand that frustration is a terrible thing, I'd suggest that a more useful approach would be using email, as by evading the block you're only making it less likely that you'll be heard. Like all adminstrators, my wikipedia email box is active...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you please come here to discuss an edit you made? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Hill

I was in the process of modifying the article to address many of the objections raised in the deletion review when you deleted the article. This included numerous third-party references to support notability and objections that there were no third-party references. I respectfully request a deletion review, starting with temporary restoration of the article followed with my modifications. I think this will make it easier for editors to judge the notability issue and also presence of reliable, third-party sources. (The original objection raised for deletion was NOT notability, but alleged lack of such sources.) I apologize for the difficulty in following my remarks in the deletion debate. The lack of organization was due to trying to respond to each person's objections and pointing out the existence of numerous third-party sources, which I have now added to the article.Dr Fil (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This comment was moved from the top of this talk of page, see page history for attribution.

24 January 2011

- - Hi Aaron, the article on the Scientist Paul R. Hill has been entirely deleted within the last week. - Is there any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.159.75 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wheels of time grind slowly onwards. Would anyone like this article restored to userspace? -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Have a look at the link I've put at the top of this section. I'll also leave a note on your user page. -

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Why delete this article, I think Dr.Fil has explained clearly that while he was not Einstein he was a notable academic/scientist in space science. There's no clear logic to your objections and blanket deletion of the article. Not only that, he was a notable figure in UFOlogy. If not accepting as academic/engineer (which doesn't make sense) re-assign him to UFOlogy. Paul Hill wrote his own book and stated his own views clearly, there is no controversy in quoting his book on his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.16.112 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remove these after the refresh, since the inclusion was via template

Humanism (life stance)

Unfortunately I blinked and missed the deletion discussion. Rather than having it reopened, could you make the text available somewhere, so that I can see whether any of the content should be placed in Secular humanism? One of the problems, I think, is that the Secular humanism article is rather US-centric - Humanism (sometimes capitalised) is the term generally used in the UK and perhaps other countries, and "life stance" is the term commonly used in the movement to distinguish it from "religion", which of course is something it is not. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy. Please see

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I push for harsh punishment for <Vigorous action> who is an Administrator of Japanese Wikipedia. --JPWikiUser (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]