User talk:R. fiend/Archive8

Wikipediology essay

Hi R. fiend, I saw that you weren't sure about how accurate your numbers were in your essay on the number of articles in Wikipedia, so I took the liberty of calculating a 95% confidence interval (fully explained on the talk page). Just thought I'd let you know! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, R. fiend - your comment on my talk page means as much to me as any vote on the RfA page. As I've promised everyone else, I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}

Forwarding articles

Can you please refrain from attempting to remove content from Wikipedia [1] [2] [3]. It is considered vandalism. If you feel the content should be removed, please discuss it on the relevant talk pages first. Thanks for your time. --SaltyWater 13:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Please leave the Bfrian Chase article. The consensus was to keep, and a single editor cannot defy consensus, 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Desist in your personal attacks. Thankyou. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Editors like you make it unpleasant to edit here with your nasty personal attacks. Desist, SqueakBox 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

Hello, R. fiend. I saw this, a moment ago, and went to the block log. I then went to the history of John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. As far as I can see, you reverted three times, and the rules (while discouraging 3 reverts) actually prohibit four, not three. I'll have another look into it, and see if mention has been made at WP:AN/3RR. I'd unblock you immediately, but I'm a fairly new admin, and don't want to jump in without being absolutely sure. Please wait a few minutes, and I will get back to you. AnnH ^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Sorry for the confusion. [[Sam Korn]] 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

New J! Related Article

Hey -- some anonotwerp has created List of greatest Jeopardy! champions and it's rife with factual errors. What do you think -- do you think it's more appropriate to clean up or send to AFD? --OntarioQuizzer 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Tom Walsh, the very first person to exceed 5 games as per the original "5 game rule;" -- nope, Sean Ryan was. "Maria Wenglinsky, who aside from the above is the only person to exceed 5 consecutive games;" -- so did Kerry Breitenbach. Eddie Timanus - "but also for making the biggest comeback in Jeopardy! history up to that time" -- how can that be truly known? Frank Spangenberg, holder of the record for greatest earnings before the repeal of the "5 game rule." -- Wrong on both counts; Jerome Vered and Brian Weikle broke both before the rule was repealed. As I said, rife with factual errors. OntarioQuizzer 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

There was a 3RR violation, and I don't appreciate being overruled without so much as a word to me.

For those who can't count:

• R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Strike one.

• Returns page to his preferred version. Strike two.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike three.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. You're out.

As an administrator, you should know better. Further, using administrator powers like rollback in an edit war is inexcusable.

The block has been restored, and should stand. -- Essjay · Talk 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be kept in the loop, don't announce that you've left. Otherwise you'd have been the first to know. Friday (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Kept in the loop, indeed. How ("otherwise") very prudent of you, Friday. El_C 10:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR only applies if four actual reversions are committed. The item you list as "Strike one" is manifestly not a revert. User:R. fiend has only edited John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy a total of five times. The edit you list as "Strike one" was R. fiend's 2nd edit, total, of the page, and was simply a minor formatting change from the previous edit. (And the previous edit happened to be his 1st edit of the page, where he simply added Brian Chase's age.)

The edit you list as "Strike two" was the first actual reversion, in which a diff of two consecutive edits from R. fiend show no differences between them. The edit you list as "Strike three" was the second actual reversion, and the edit you list as "You're out" was the third actual reversion.

WP:3RR makes it fairly plain that there must be more than three reverts in a 24 hour period for a 3RR violation to have taken place. And they must be actual reversions, not mere edits. R. fiend did indeed perform three actual reversions within a 24 hour period, but he very clearly did not perform more than three reversions.

Of course, ideally, a dialogue at the talk page should be opened before the first reversion, and matters should be discussed there without resorting to petty back-and-forth editing in a game of "who can blink first". R. fiend, as an admin, is certainly aware of this, and I'm sure he simply allowed himself to be caught up in the moment, as happens to us all from time to time. I have no doubt that he has been suitably chastened, and given that no actual 3RR violation has occurred, I am taking the liberty of unblocking him (assuming he's still blocked at this point, which I haven't checked).

All the best.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, R. fiend. I saw when I got up this morning, that you had been blocked again, and that your block had been increased.[4] It still seemed to me that you had only reverted three times, not four. I didn't want to unblock you again without being absolutely sure, so I posted a message here before rushing into work. I didn't have time to leave a note for you or Essjay. When I unexpectedly got a few minutes free at work I logged on from the staffroom computer, and saw that nobody, so far, had responded. So I decided, after some hesitation, to unblock you again, which I did. I then hastily posted a message to WP:AN/3RR before rushing upstairs for my next student.

Essjay, if you are reading this, I will leave a message on your talk page shortly. However, since you had announced your departure, and had also announced that you would not be coming back, I did not think it would be right to leave what seems to be an inappropriate block in place while writing to you. This is how I read the "four reverts":

• R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Edit, not revert.

• Returns page to his preferred version. Strike one.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike two.

• Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. Strike three. You're still in.

As this seems to have caused some controversy, perhaps the best place to discuss it would be that WP:AN/3RR

Regards to both of you. AnnH ^(talk) 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

United

If you were to take over that airline, you could change their motto to "The Fiendly Skies".

My RfA

Thanks for voting on my RfA! I don't mind that you voted neutral. :) Shanel 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Rising Low

Hi. I noticed you deleted an article with the above title. I was hoping you could send me the original content. I have seen the movie and know it is more than notable. What I had written was just a stub and was planning on improving and expanding it. I have decided to post it at the requested articles page under the subset documentary films. I have travelled across country (US) since I wrote the original content and have no memory of or copy of the og. article. I was hoping to get it back from you so that I can expand and prove to people (possibly) like you who do not think it is notable. Many famous rock stars, one produced and directed the film, are in this movie and it is a documentary of the albums The Deep End, Volume 1 & The Deep End, Volume 2. It has won an award at an International Film Festival. Thanks Daviddec 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for expressing your opinions as to the Template:Irish Republicanism. As Tom Garvin states in his books on Irish political culture, terms like republicanism and nationalism in Ireland extraordinarily ill-defined and very often mean what the individual user takes it to mean, even though others have a different definition. The reasons why I don't believe it the template is salvagable are:

1. definition: which definition is used for Irish republicanism? There are numerous definitions used by different sides who insist that their definition is the right one and those who don't fit in it aren't real republicans. For example:
   1. Militant republicanism: (eg, the Provisional IRA, Continuity IRA, etc)
   2. Revolutionary republicanism (The marxist Official IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, James Connolly),
   3. republicanism as a commitment to independent self-government (that would include monarchists like Griffith, W.T. Cosgrave, O'Higgins, etc),
   4. republicanism as in a commitment to a republican form of government (de Valera, Lemass, etc).
2. POV edit wars: because Irish republicanism is such a clearly undefined term, the template would be a focal point for edit wars over who is included and who is excluded. Many (Provisional) Sinn Féin supporters do not regard the Official Sinn Féin as being republican in an Irish sense at all, believing that it was simply marxist. For a host of groups various inclusions or exclusions would be seen as offensive. Many would find the inclusion of revolutionary republicanism as problematic, particularly where it is not Irish revolutionary concepts but ideas based on class and marxist analyst, etc. Others would go ballistic if Kevin O'Higgins was included in, or W.T. Cosgrave. Others would simply keep adding them in. Pages on the various Sinn Féins and the various IRAs are already under target of consistent vandalism. (One warped Continuity IRA supporter tried to redirect republicanism worldwide into a redirect for Republican Sinn Féin!!!) SF supporters and CSF supporters have being having verbal spats on a host of pages for months. (One insisted on changing references to Northern Ireland to the Six Counties and replacing loyalist terrorists by unionist terrorists repeatedly until banned!) This template would be a mecca for those POV edits because instead of having to go through all the pages changing all the links and invariably being caught, a vandal could just change the template and hey presto, he has changed all the articles that have it to push his POV. It is worrying that one of those most involved in POVing articles (for which he has been repeatedly blocked) has made a rare visit to the TFD page to vote to keep this page.
3. In addition to issues of content (which parties are in, which are out? Which politicians are in, which are out?) there's the issue of where the template is going to be displayed. One user has already been offended with its appearance on the Michael Collins page, arguing that it was highly POV to put a template there given that "republicans killed Collins". Others will go ballistic if they find a template with links to the Provos and the CIRA appears on mainstream Irish pages, because it would be seen as accepting their validity as successors to the original Irish Republican Army, a validity questioned by many historians and most Irish people.

In just about every way imaginable, this template is a POV nightmare from hell. It will either have edit wars over which parties are linked to it or which people, and then over where it is displayed. Having spent so long stopping PIRA and CIRA supporters from vandalising each other's articles, the last thing I and others want to do is to have to mediate over edit wars about this flaming template as well. While the creator may have thought it a good idea, it has 'POV disaster' written all over it. I am normally a fan of templates, but this one sent a shiver down my spine and the POV havoc it could cause all over the place. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi R. fiend,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

I've seen you around and appreciate the support from a veteran. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded, and I'll do my best on CSDs. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)