User talk:Friday

Archives: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3

Put new stuff at the bottom.

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not a member, and I didn't see my name on the list..? Friday (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

one bad article does not deserve another

Liked your essay at User:Friday/bad. The "but we have..." argument really frosts me; it's part of a whole class of ineffably whiny arguments. (The even worse one is, "Don't complain to me that I did this bad thing; I know it's bad, so what, that doesn't matter because: person X over there that I did this bad thing to, did it first.") But please fix the spelling in three places: it's "consistent". —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, my spelling is atrocious sometimes. And I probably misspelled that, too. Friday (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Reference ?

Hello Friday. On my user page you ask, I'm confused by your edit here. I don't see the self-reference. Neither, apparently did Raymond Hill. I reverted your change.

Okay, the article begins (when read as an article): "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" This situation is exactly the situation which WP:ASR carefully tells us not to do, stating: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as: This Wikipedia article discusses ..." I therefore deleted it. It might be worth noting that while editing, those words do not appear because they are held within a clever template. Nonetheless, to the reader who reads the article, the words appear as I have stated them which is directly contrary to WP:ASR. Terryeo 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"New York" is both a state and a city. Heck there might be a sandwich by the name too, if you go to a restaurant and they ask you what kind of steak you want, you say, "New York", well, they bring you that kind of steak. Dianetics is not the actual title of any book. It is a subject. Therefore, it appears as a self-serving, self reference. That's my understanding of the situation. Terryeo 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to argue that the disambig is unneccessary, that's a seperate issue from it being an undesirable self-reference. I have a copy of the book, and I refer to it as "Dianetics" for short. I bet this is common. A more precise name for the city would be "New York, New York", but people call it "New York" for short, hence the disambig is helpful. To me these situations are very similiar. Friday (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics" isn't even accurate. The article meanders on about Hubbard (maybe 1/3 of the article) and blathers about economics of Dianeitcs, it certainly does not confine itself to "The ideas and practices of Dianetics" and is therefore an inaccurate self-reference. A disambiguation might be about a book which contains the same word. There simply is no other Dianetics. The article is bound to be about Dianetics, the title says so. How can you not view it as self-referencing? Terryeo 20:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in... The self-references described in WP:ASR that we are to avoid are self-references to Wikipedia, not to the article. WP:ASR#Neutral references specifically excludes properly-formatted disambiguation notices. android79 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yah, definitely, it's the word "Wikipedia" that makes a bad self-reference. As for the meaning of the word, to you as a subject matter expert, sure, it refers to one thing. To possibly unfamiliar readers, it refers to the book, too. Many people refer to the book as "Dianetics". It may not be the most accurate name for the book, but it's a commonly used name. If you don't feel the article content in general is right, thats a completely different issue. To me (and, from what I can see, to most editors) the disambig makes sense. Friday (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Car I Win

Friday-- Thanks for your big welcome message on my talk page. Though that page is empty, I am not in fact new to Wikipedia or its policies. I published my article with all of the values of a free encyclopedia in mind; what others have articles on things such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Wikipedia includes several other car games (such as punch buggy), and I felt it was missing the one I play the most often. I've posted more information on the article's discussion page. If you'd be so kind as to take a look at that or to discuss it further with me, I'd like that. ---Dana 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's Admin Coaching

Hey! Thanks for signing up in Wikipedia:Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Since you've volunteered to help train a user, I've assigned Fetofs to you and to your partner, DakotaKahn. Please make sure to be kind and helpful to your coachee. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Friday, Dakota suggested that I contacted you so we could know when you'll be available for the coaching, and how would this be done. Do you have any ideas? Fetofs ^Hello! 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for general advice, because I hadn't had any ideas myself. What I wanted to was that you answered my basic question (of course you would oppose me on a future request on an WP:RFA. What should I do to get a support?) -- yes,that implies that I'm not an admin yet, so I can't speedy delete things ;). I also thought that you could organize some hypothetical situations so I could judge my sense of things. In a resumed fashion, I wanted to try to do what you think I had to do so you could nominate me yourself. By the way, what was your biggest focus on Wikipedia before you were promoted to an admin? Fetofs ^Hello! 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, how silly of me. For some reason I thought admin coaching was for new admins, but I suppose it makes more sense to coach them up before they're nominated. Anyway, what I would recommend is to work on your answers to the RFA questions starting whenever you feel like it, that way you'll have answers you've already put thought into for when the time comes. I'm a bit confused tho- you're saying I would oppose you on an RFA? Why? I don't see a reason why I would. To me it looks like you're doing good work here already, but if there are specific areas you think you need help with, let me know. Friday (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that... By the way, I've set up a page for coaching ,when you want to put tips or test questions in there feel free to do it. Not much to ask now, but if I et to have any questions, I'll ask them here or at my user subpage. Fetofs ^Hello! 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Neogles

Hello. I noticed that you overwrote the vanity junk article Neogles with what appears to be an "experimental deletion" tag. After (briefly) looking at the project page, I do quite recognize that this appears to be a good faith effort at deletion streamlining (which I, as an off-and-on RC patroller, would appreciate very much). However, this method is in practical effect vandalism, and I have dealt with it accordingly (rv + prod). Please consider stop using this method, as it

• appears to be less transparent than the triad of speedy/prod/AfD
• leaves zillions of blanked pages around if mass-deployed
• with its current wording, it has the same results as WP:PROD but with more disadvantages (text is hidden, no automatic removal after 5 days).

Best, Sandstein 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. To me, XD does everything prod does, and better. But, I think the right place to talk about it is at Wikipedia talk:Experimental Deletion. I don't see a reason to stop using it, in fact right now I prefer it to most other methods, but I'm always open to new ideas. Anyway, I don't neccessarily agree that prod is the way to go for this article (for one thing, there's already been one objection to the deletion, so technically we're not supposed to use prod), but I'm not going to go undoing it, either. Friday (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

to JJay

Hi, I'm very pleased that you sound like you're willing to take this issue to my talk page. I don't know if you saw it or not, but I left you a note a little while back (here, rather than on your own talk page, as you requested). It's since been archived, but it's still quite relevant. It's at User talk:Friday/archive3#To JJay. Since it appears that we're still not able to edit the same article without conflict, I feel it's important to resolve this dispute. Do you think we should look for a mediator or something? I'm open to any suggestion that can get us back to editing rather than sniping at each other. I doubt we'll magically start agreeing on certain issues, but surely we can disagree peacefully? Friday (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you're interested, there's a page I'm setting up to discuss this problem. Friday (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

update

just letting you know that I, the recovering idiot ( ok, so its not as bad as recovering alcoholic), Gabriel simon, of previous stupidity, am now trying to have a lighter touch, plus i moved to a more relaxing place, and things are looking up, as far as IRL life is concerned, so more or less, just saying im back, and there seems little reason to fear, for me or you. also, its my birthdayGimmiet 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)