User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

RfA thanks

Hi (aeropagitica), and thanks for your ISTJ participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 04:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Aero, thanks a lot for your support to my RFA. Wow, thats a lot of edits you have!! Hope to be able to match upto you someday:) -- Lost^(talk) 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and I just noticed, like me, you are Lost too ;) -- Lost^(talk) 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Permissions

Is there a way in which I can just get permission to delete all of the stupid and dumb articles that appear on Special:Newpages? Diez2 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to delete articles, you have to have Administrator privileges on Wikipedia. You can read about the role of administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators. If you want to become an admin then I suggest making helpful edits in the Wiki, polocy, article and Userspaces for at least six months in order to build up knowledge of policies and guidelines and a good reputation amongst your peers. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, take a look at the speedy deletion criteria and use the templates to tag the pages for the attention of administrators such as me. Don't forget that you have been adopted by Rat235478683, so you are free to ask them questions about Wikipedia as well! (aeropagitica) 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Passing comment

Re: User: Aughhheadshot, what a strange one that was. I'm going to keep the comments he left on my talk page as a keepsake. If I was to imagine some kind of "comic strip" vandal - that would be it! Bubba hotep 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblock

I am Bobabobabo, i am using my home computer. To tell you the truth, I was a wonderful contributor to articles in Wikipedia "Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon". The story began when a user named Mitsumasa began creating and upload Pokemon images and articles.

After about 5 months after the start of the articles the PCP began merging the articles (A Man In Black, Ryulong, Interrobamf) i tried talking to them, and the PCP but they did'nt listen. I even tried to leave a committ on their usertalk pages but A Man in Black is the only one that responds to my committ. I gave up until recently students at my school "The Learning Community School" began bullying me, they knew that I was a contributor at the site "Wikipedia", so they told my teacher that they logged in some accounts and began vandalizing the articles that I personattly was currently having problems with you. My teacher Mrs. Lisa Mercato talked to the students Jene', Jessica, Aaron and restricted them from using the school computer.

I'm very sorry. May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38. May you please just make it that I can create a new account. It is a total misunderstanding. If you want to talk to my teacher, please email her at lmercato@yahoo.com. The block is casuing the school not to edit Wikipedia. Thank you, and God Bless. (18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Yukiudaigx now added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bobabobabo. (aeropagitica) 18:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect function

Hi. I'm not an admin but I was wondering if this would still allow me to semi-protect certain pages that have been vandalised quite often within the past few days. If not, how could I go about having this assigned to articles? Wikiwoohoo 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Take your business case for semi-protection to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It will be assessed and granted/refused after a discussion. (aeropagitica) 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :). Wikiwoohoo 20:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Stealthound 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Take this case to either the administrators' noticeboard or the administrators' noticeboard for incidents for action. (aeropagitica) 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello (aeropagitica), Very thanks for supporting my RfA and for comments on it. I would try to use new tools in the best possible way. I am very thankful to you for showing confidence in me. If I found any difficulty in handling the tools, I would ask for the solution. Thanks for congratulations :) Shyam ^(T/C) 05:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Vandal Warning

I appreciate your concern for vandalism on Wikipedia, but I think you should know that the revisions indicate that I was fixing the vandalism that had occurred before I visited the page, and I did not add anything to the entry. Thanks. 68.100.59.189 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, (aeropagitica), for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also thank you for congratulating me. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 20:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

It has indeed become apparent that the person editing under 86.86.242.88 is intentionally vandalising, but please change the block to a temporary one. It's an IP address, and you could be permanently preventing more than one person from editing. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a softblock, so accounts can be registered by editors if they want to contribute constructively. I can reduce the block, though. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider semi-protection of the IP's talk page, due to vandalism after the block. --Gray Porpoise^{cetaceans have large brains} 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanley-Wilf conjecture

Sorry, the recreation was mine, not User:Sr13. It is my belief that small articles are better than red links, as anonymous can expand stubs but can't create articles. However, I understand your position, and thus I am sorry for having recreated the article. -- ReyBrujo 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point of view as well but an encyclopedia article that offers nothing more than the product of a Google search isn't very useful! We're all dedicated to helping researchers, so we just need to educate those editors who don't understand the process of article creation when the opportunity arises. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why did I get a message from you saying that my page was deleted? And... Why can't I post a picture on the page "Libertyville High School?" It just says "Image: Cats." in red letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyville (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes, ~~~~, as this makes it easier to respond to your questions. Secondly, the deleted article was in no way related to the minimal content, hence its deletion. As to your second question, you don't post images on to articles; they are uploaded using the Upload file link on the left-hand side menu. You can then link to the image from the article. Please read the links on the page before uploading images to ensure that you are doing so legally. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did try uploading the file, yet it still says "Image: Cats" in red letters. If you have time, could you please look into restoring the image that was posted as Libertyville's logo prior to my deleting of it. I know you're busy, so this isn't nessecary. If you'd be so kind though, that would make my life a lot easier. Thanks, Libertyville 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean that you want the page restored to display the logo that was removed by an anonymous IP editor? If so I have done as such. If not, then I didn't understand your request. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding.

I had a Question. Can you create a page? Not edit, but create. If so, how? I wanted to create one for a school in the area. Thanks, Libertyville 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Help pages, you will find lots of information for new editors. You want to look at creating new articles but I would advise you to read through the Help pages first to get a better understanding of the nature of Wikipedia articles. Also, read some other school articles to see what type of useful information they contain and how they are set out for ease of use. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere? Respond here Deadline for entries is December 15th, PST. AstroBoy 03:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White thunder

Hi, I'm asking you for help because you've also commented on this AfD discussion. User:Mystery dragon left an unsigned comment embedded within my comment. The effect of it is that I seem to be accusing myself of being rascist, which is a little odd. I'd like to sort this out so that the correct comments are attributed to the correct person, but I don't know how to do that. Can you give me a hand? Darkspots 04:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out on my own, and I'm pretty sure that I did it correctly. My aversion to editing someone else's comments in a discussion like that were hard to overcome, but I think everything is clear and correctly attributed. Cheers. Darkspots 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was performing admin tasks until 0300 GMT this morning, so I have only just woken up! I'm glad that you got to the bottom of your question, though. I would look at the edit history of the discussion to see who said what and when, then go from there. Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran_Theological_Seminary_at_Philadelphia

Thanks. I did attempt to discuss the matter civilly, and was met with some quite rude comments. I will continue to try to do so, if you have any suggestions please let me know. Seraphimblade 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looking at Waiting4's Talk page history, they have removed quite a few warnings and a block message. You did the right thing about bringing it to admin attention. Just remember the three revert rule and be careful not to cross it when reinstating speedy tags. This stops petty edit wars and tit-for-tat arguments about content. You don't cross it when reverting vandalism, though. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize, I thought that removing speedy tags was considered a form of vandalism and was exempt from 3RR. If I was incorrect in that, I apologize and will remember that in the future. Seraphimblade 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism and you won't transgress the rule by reinstating the tags! You can warn the other editor about WP:3RR, though, and have them blocked for ignoring your warnings. No apology required! Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Waiting4 (AIV)

Sorry, admin crossover. I actually speedied the article as A7 (without prejudice for fuller re-creation) and blocked Waiting4 for revert-warring and personal attacks, before I saw your comments on AIV. Adding the deletion tag was a legitimate content issue, repeatedly removing it and reacting with a personal-attacks rampage across multiple pages was unacceptable. Feel free to review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't require a review, the article was a substub without asserting notability. I've just pointed this out to Seraphimblade. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your username

I always wondered but I had forgot to ask, but was the misspelling of your name intentional? Nishkid64 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The story of my username. (aeropagitica) 20:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, okay, thanks for sharing the story. =) Nishkid64 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Veoh

Hi, according to this, you deleted the article for Veoh about a month ago. Can you tell me why this happened or show me a link to the deletion discussion? Thanks. Peter S. 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted after being marked with {{db-web}}. The article didn't assert notability or provide sources for information referenced. You can bring it up for deletion review, if you like. I can also supply a copy of the article at the time of deletion if you would like that. (aeropagitica) 19:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The article is about a website that just started and it's possible that it wasn't really notable at its time. I think that things have changed, though. How about if we reinstate it and do a regular vfd at the moment when somebody still thinks it is not notable? Peter S. 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, please take this to deletion review if you want to recreate the article and have a business case for doing so. Alternatively, you can be bold and recreate the article, this time providing sources and references as per WP:RS and ensuring the the company/website complies with the criteria set out in WP:CORP/ WP:WEB. Best to do so on a user sub-page and have someone review it beforehand. You can ask for assistance at the help desk, if required. (aeropagitica) 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Are we talking about the same article that can still be viewed here: [1]? Can you tell me what is wrong with this article? Is it possible that the speedy deletion process has been applied to a vandalized version of the article? Because I can really not see anything wrong with it. There are many mentions of it in the nytimes alone: [2]. Why does the community go forward with a speedy deletion of an not-brandnew article whose notability can be easily confirmed? Could you please re-instated it from that copy you have access to? Thanks a million. Peter S. 00:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I told you earlier, the article failed to assert the notability of its subject and also failed to provide sources and references. The age of the article is irrelevant, as all articles are under perpetual review and can be deleted or brought to Featured Article status depending upon the efforts of editors and the criteria for each status. You have already had the options for recreation presented to you, please make your choice. I'm about to go off-line. (aeropagitica) 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi aeropagitica, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Nightmoves (band)

And how do you suggest I access said band's MySpace? I don't know them, I'm just improving articles related to Whitby Gothic Weekend - Deathrocker 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pay attention to dates.

I have not created any redirects to any deleted articles. I created redirects to an existing article which was later deleted.

Please do not leave nonsensical messages on my Talk page. It is considered vandalism. Thank you. --Mr. Billion 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Resolving disputes"

If I could direct your attention to the fact that I did nothing at all except be the victim of vandalism and warn him of vandalism. In his own words, I once removed a template because it was in the wrong place (was supposed to be on talk page) and he went ape. I then, later, added a userbox. That is all that I did. Then, out of nowhere, my page gets blanked, partially blanked, and vandalized and then my talk page is barraged with fake vandalism warnings. I have no idea what clicked, but I can't accept this and something has to be done. --StonedChipmunk 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me give my side: We are roommates at a boarding school. On several occassions, he has gone to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of deleting large amounts of my user page. Today he says "Time to vandalize your userpage" and deletes my userboxes. I then went back and changed parts of his page. After several unresponseive attempts to leave vandal templates, I reported him. --Cs92 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate these wars. Being a vandalism patroller, I get them often. But my point is, I have NOT EVER done ANYTHING other than what I said to his userpage. We are roommates, but this comment is only a joke and I have never ever deleted anything other than the templates and some text (the text was while he was watching). You can check the history logs for yourself. I have NEVER purposefully visited his userpage for the sole purpose of vandalism. Please do not listen to his cons. Being his roommate, he is a great convincing talker... but PLEASE, read the history logs for yourself. Even if the removal of the templates was considered vandalism, blanking and blatantly repetitively vandalizing my userpage and leaving multiple vandalism warnings for "vandalizing" his talk page (how is leaving a vandalism warning vandalism in itself?? You tell me) is not really an effective way to deal with the situation. --StonedChipmunk 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Then this has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with your real-life relationship. Please both of you leave your computers alone and resolve your dispute face-to-face. This will be quicker and more effective than anything that arbitrators and admins can do via Talk pages and blocking for hours/days. Honestly, it will be! Get a mutual friend or a tutor to mediate if you find that you can't raise the issue with each other without getting heated and shouting. This should keep the conversation civil and flowing. (aeropagitica) 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No no no. You don't get the point. In the real world we're relatively good friends. But I've literally tried my hardest to get him off of the computer (luckily he is sitting on his bed at the moment, once he sees this he'll go back on probably). I can't really do much about this. Leaving my computer wouldn't work due to the fact that he would vandalize while I'm on the phone scheduling an appointment with the school counselor. There's no way around this. A 24 hour ban would get him to straighten up and fly right, though. --StonedChipmunk 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Block both of you so that you have no choice other than to talk it through with your councelor as mediator? That's quite extreme and it would be better if you could both demonstrate a high standard of maturity and leave the computer alone while you go to the appointment. (aeropagitica) 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean this as being funny, but a 24 hour ban on him would be enough to satisfy me. If you notice, I did nothing. Cs92 was the one who vandalized. I don't see how hard it is to understand, really. (This is NOT a relationship issue. It's a Wikipedia issue.) --StonedChipmunk 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am telling you to take your dispute to a mediated resolution in the real world. Punitive blocks won't solve anything and the vandalism usually continues when the block expires. Let's all be grown-up about this. I'm signing off now, so I won't see any responses for at least six hours. I hope that you're not blocked when I check back tomorrow. (aeropagitica) 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a risk by saying this yet again. A real world resolution is not possible. I've already tried to stop this. Luckily he has stopped. If nothing else happens, chances are you won't hear from me again. (Also, don't reply to this. I already understand your point. Just clarifying mine.) --StonedChipmunk 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not

No, I'm not an admin. Sometime, maybe, but not yet. I came across these two young gentlemen because of the "Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Unit" discussion last week, which one of them was leading, so his page wound up on my watchlist. Have a good evening. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support and for your message of congratulations on my talk page. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 02:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Julie Green

Not sure why I got this message from you. Had I tagged it? Pascal.Tesson 21:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It looked on the edit history for the article as if you had created it, that's why I let you know that it had been speedily deleted. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, do you mind double checking? If I really did create this then I either have split-personality disorder or someone can hack into my account. I have no idea whatsoever who Julie Green is. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, had a momentary doubt about my mental health! :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)