User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:(aeropagitica). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Paul&Keri

Why was my article about the Paul&Keri Paper Company deleted? I was trying to improve it and find verfy things but it was gone and it was deleted.? Please respond because i want to see what i have done wrong so i can improve my entries. 0OoDUOOO0o() 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Companies and organisations are notable as per the criteria set out in WP:CORP. If your article is notable according to these guidelines then please develop it in a user sub-page and have another editor review it before publication. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Namhto

Can you please take a look at this guy? [[1]] He is a menace, and his sole intent seems to be vandalism. He needs, to use the words of George W. Bush, a "thumpin'". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoldanarchist (talk • contribs)

He has been blocked for a week. Please remember to be civil in your comments on other editors. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend the comment to be taken seriously, and certainly was not intending to be uncivil. It was really just a joke prompted by frustration. No offense meant. ---Charles 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hey Aeropagitica, about a month ago I made an RFA that you provided feedback on. I'm just wondering if you could spare a couple minutes to take a look at how I'm doing so far. It'd be much appreciated. Thanks! :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a day or two, when I can spare some time to give you proper attention. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No rush. It's much appreciated. :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

stop making my life miserable. why dont you try being in my situation? battries on the laptop is running low, no a/c adaptor avalible. those bastards at dell can kiss my ass. --Laptop critic 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the area in which to air your greivances. Please read WP:CIVIL and cease making provocative and inflammatory comments. (aeropagitica) 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK block me. suck out all the dignity left in me. dell has taken away my life. when you buy a dell product, think of the misery and greive you have caused to me. i ask you to boycott dell. please. --Laptop critic 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Phil remaly

i had a good reason for adding the protect tag. The article was vandalism, and was in the process of being written. I protected it so that i could delete it. Dont be a jack ass next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philr359 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes, ~~~~, as this makes it easier for other editors to reply to you. Secondly, please remember WP:CIVIL when leaving comments as rude comments can be considered vandalism. Thirdly, you do not have admin privileges, so please do not place tags on pages that are to be used only by admins. If you want to demonstrate that an article is currently being edited, please use the {{inuse}} tag instead. (aeropagitica) 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"The local time at the Wikipedia servers"

Something's telling lies. Your userpage reads "The local time at the Wikipedia servers is 17:43 on Friday 17 November, 2006". I thought the servers lived in sunny Florida, where it's more like 12:43, not damp old England. Is that the local time per my browser in moist London, perhaps? Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 17:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The WP servers are set at GMT or UTC rather than Florida time, GMT-5 or EST. You should also notice the same thing on timestamps made on Project pages and User Talk pages. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! So it's reporting the server internal time, irrespective of anything local. I've noticed that on my edits on some pages, but there appears to be some inconsistency between the time reported during BST (times in edit logs are BST and my sig shows [with my preferences set to an offset of one hour for BST] as BST. Or the other way round :-) ). I've had similar problems with Javascript, which obligingly displays Date() objects corrected to "local time on the browser". Takes some messing about to apply a de-correction to display "time on the server", especially if you want to take account of daylight saving time on the browser! Ah well, enough Wikipedantry for now, the pub calls. Tonywalton | Talk 17:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fastlane (band)

Below are the reasons that Fastlane is a "notable-band" per Wikipedis's guidlines:

Can you please respond as to why this doesn't quakify them as a notable band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilbit924 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments on User Talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~, as this makes it easier for editors to respond to you. Secondly, if you have evidence that your article meets the notability criteria as stated in WP:Music, please include it in the article. You can develop articles in user sub-pages before publication. This will ensure that all of the evidence for notability is immediately available upon publication. You can also have another editor review your work before publication. User sub-pages are not usually edited by other users. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In Medias Res

Thanks for your help. I couldn't find the page because I was spelling it wrong (reas, instead of res). So I thought I was creating the page for the first time. I'll edit that one instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimos87 (talk • contribs)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, (aeropagitica), for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, M a rtinp23 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: signing talkpage comments

Argh! You're right, stupid of me. He was keeping me busy for a few minutes there, and I was cross-posting the comment between his IP account and his new account, and I missed signing one of them. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Stalker/Vandal

The following user is constantly making derogatory comments about people, particularly knifemakers and is threatening to have me removed from wikipedia as well have my articles trashed. Sam Wereb I saw you deleted a personal attack the user made against Rick Hinderer.

Everything in the three articles I've been working on - Ernest Emerson, Emerson Knives and Strider Knives - can be sourced and is sourced, yet this person refers to them as puff pieces and has made numerous derrogotory comments against the Hinderers, Emersons, and Strider knives. He's fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact. Check his history. Thank you. --Mike Searson 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to report this to the personal attack noticeboard. (aeropagitica) 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I really hate "reporting someone" and I'd rather work constructively with the guy than fight with him. Cheers! --Mike Searson 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your support and for being the first one to congratulate me! ReyBrujo 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I never stated that another editor's work was "awful." I said "these" (the articles) are awful. They are collaborative fan pages designed to generate links to the individual websites. I acknowledge that the guy worked hard added sycophantic POV fluffery to them, but told him how they look awful. That fully explains, and justifies, my use of the term "awful." They are fansites and should be deleted as such.

Sbarkfe

I've noticed that you wrote a message to that user and told him that his/her article will be soon deleted. Although he may be a vandal. I think it should be necessary to assume good faith and allow him/her the opportunity to contest any kind of motion to delete the article.

The article is currently going though AFD. Please allow the AFD to stand for a week or so, unless if no supportive information is supplied. Thank you RiseRobotRise 03:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message to the above editor makes an assumption that I have "an agenda" against the article. Upon what evidence do you base that accusation? The article was deleted because it was unsourced nonsense of no encyclopedic value. Citing and referencing sources would demonstrate a degree of academic rigour on the part of the contributing editor and would also allow for the information to be verified. The AfD process gives the author or other interested party five days to perform this task before consensus is reached.

If you would like to discuss my reasons for deleting an article then please leave me a message to that effect. It is not good practise to encourage an editor to repost speedily deleted material whilst making assumptions about the reasons an admin deleted it in the first place. (aeropagitica) 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of any evidence that the preceding article has been deleted before, and where in that message have I encouraged that user to repost any deleted material. I merely told the user that he/she should cite any sources that would support any facts in the article that was created.

I infact tagged the article as "no sources verified"

Can you really assume that all users who are new to Wikipedia know all of Wikipedia's policy's right off the bat when they begin to contribute? Please don't bite the newcomers and discourage them from contributing. The message you sent to that user suggested that the page he/she made was only a test page and was going to be deleted momentarily. Even though the article doesn't remotely appear to be as such. A message telling the user to give sited sources, and an outline of Wikipedia policies would've been more appropriate. RiseRobotRise 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted at 00:25, November 19 and recreated at 00:41 the same day. Your message was left at 04:17, by which time the article had been recreated, so the red link would have turned blue again; the recreation had already occurred by the time that you left your message. The message left for Sbarkfe is a standard deletion warning, left for hundreds of editors every day.

You didn't just leave a message asking for sources to be stated, you questioned my reasons for deletion without questioning me, making an assumption without my rationale. I haven't assumed that the editor knows anything about policy or how to write good articles because if they did then I wouldn't have had a reason to delete it and the article wouldn't have gone to AfD with an overwhelming delete consensus, the only two keep votes from yourself and the author. I haven't bitten any newcomers or made assumptions about their knowledge of process or emotional state. I deleted an encyclopedic page and informed the author of this process, something that I and many other admins do on an ongoing basis as a daily task. The standard warnings are part of the process. If you want to debate the merits of the wording of standard warnings then you can do so at WP:ANB for starters. (aeropagitica) 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

RaptorRobot

Can anyone stop this person vandalising?--Greasysteve13 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has not had any vandal warnings, so are they a vandal? If they have vandalised, you can report them to WP:AIV once you have reached {{test4}} on their Talk page. If you have done this then the response time should be fairly short. Leaving messages on individual admins' Talk pages may incur a delay due to timezone differences, as they may be asleep or away from their computers. Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well (because of your name) your were the first admin on the list. I don't mind the delay. Thanks for any help.--Greasysteve13 10:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

VPRF recreated article

Yeah it was VP that recreated it when I tagged it. Hello32020 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy Crap

What is wrong my articles. They are great. Myspace is for wankers. --SadDamMadDam 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt a personal attack. I just hate myspace its gay. Just stop screwing up my articles --SadDamMadDam 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

my articles are fine theres nothing wrong with them. u just delete my articles without a reason. --SadDamMadDam 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I tell you quite clearly why articles are deleted. It is your responsibility to contribute effectively and my and other editors' responsibilities to educate you in your efforts. Was this a mistake? I have reverted it. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A idiotic user User:GhostPirate has deleted my article Onion Street without my permission. I then made a page critising his actions and that also got deleted. I demand the banning of this user at once. --SadDamMadDam 22:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you mean Onion Bridge? Permission is not required for speedy deletions; indeed, the author's permission is not required for anything as under the terms of GFDL you do not own your contributions, so being possessive about articles is a waste of time and energy. I have already told you about resolving disputes amicably. I suggest that you take the necessary steps to do so. (aeropagitica) 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Two Girls and a Guy

Thanks for adding the stub categories to Two Girls and a Guy while I was busy rifling through the list of all possible stubs... User:David Jordan 11/19/2006.

No problem! I'm surprised that it didn't already exist, considering the cast list. It's a good film. Perhaps you can look at the film infobox template as something else to add to raise the standard of the article, along with all of the great information that you have already contributed? Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks (areopagitica) for the helping hand. (→Netscott) 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Glad that I could help. (aeropagitica) 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

I did not know that the link linked to my page. I must have set it up wrong. The reason I was absent for such a long time, if you look at my userpage, you will see that I work for CNN. I was very busy with my new job. Since then, I have been able to get back on track with Wikipedia. Wiki eZach| talk 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding inappropriate links - Psybnc

I am *NOT* and I stress *NOT* adding inappropriate links. It seems as if, when I do provide links, I get accused of providing inappropriate links, and when i don't I get accused of not providing citation. Is this some kind of joke? Please stop removing the PsyBNC section. --Hm2k 00:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a rip-off from http://www.psybnc.at/about.html, which is inappropriate as we can't just copy websites on to Wikipedia. Someone owns the copyright on the above website and there is no indication that the owner has given Wikipedia the right to reproduce their original content. If you can rewrite the article so that it doesn't resemble the website then please do so. If you have permission to copy the website then please make this explicit. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights for details and Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for methods for asking permission. (aeropagitica) 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SpiderManLenticular.gif

Image:SpiderManLenticular.gif is a fair use image; it can't go on your user page. _JD^talk 21:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now reverted, thanks for the heads-up. Shame, it is a really good image. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm

Hello i am fairly new how do you become an administrator? thanks --"P-Machine" 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you have less than ~2500 edits then I wouldn't go for the position cold as you probably don't have enough experience to satisfy the majority of the contributors at RfA. To prepare for the position, you should continue to contribute to all relevant areas of Wikipedia - the main Article space, the project space (pages beginning with Wikipedia) and the user space (Talk pages). Admins have three powers; to block users from editing, to protect pages from being edited and to restore deleted pages. You can participate in admin related duties by patrolling the New and Recent Changes pages and spotting and tagging pages for deletion based upon the criteria found at WP:CSD. You can also warn vandals when you tag their pages. If you haven't done this before then I would watch the pages and see how people actually patrol. I would also watch the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see how people perform the tasks and back their opinions up with policies and guidelines. You can also report persistent vandals to the administrators' intervention noticeboard. When you have done some of the above, you can also sign up for Admin coaching for future guidance. It's best just to learn how to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia first, which means encyclopedic content, references, sources and cleaning up language. Regards, (aeropagitica) 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Gaming World article

Hello there. I see that you have deleted the Gaming World article after it turned up on AfD for the second time. While I agree that the article itself was very poor and perhaps not the most important one of our encyclopedia, I do find it a bit strange that it was deleted for being non-notable. The submitter said that it isn't notable in its field (which is amateur RPG creation); the site was rather large, however, with over 30,000 members and high-ranking Google results (for example, by far the most popular software for the creation of RPG games is RPG maker; while results for this software are mostly limited to product information, Gaming World is the first actual community site listed for a phrase such as "rpg maker game", which yields 1,730,000 results). The submitter also said that the site cannot easily be found when searching on Google for its name, Gaming World, but this seems to be untrue; it instead shows up as the first result. Perhaps you could review this deletion sometime? I think that this website is sufficiently notable in its field to warrant inclusion. Thanks! —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! If you want the deletion reviewed then you need to take your business case to Wikipedia:Deletion review and state your reasons why the article should be reinstated. (aeropagitica) 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. I thought of putting it up there first, but the page stated that I should take it up with you first, as you were the closing admin. Nevertheless, I'll add it there. Thanks for the help. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the article on Deletion Review. You can find the discussion here. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

T-borg & Tyar Discussion Page

You can use your Talk pages for discussion. There's no need to set up a Talk page in the article space. (aeropagitica) 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get it into archive format, so I am trying. I did something wrong. The page should not be in the public yet. Tyar 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (no need to reply)! Tyar 21:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

SUPERLOVE

Why was the SUPERLOVE article deleted. It was an information page about an event that happened. It was marked as nonsence, but is 100% true and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastablastauk (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes, ~~~, like that. This makes it easier for other editors to respond to you. Secondly, the event may have occurred but it wasn't a notable event and as such it was deleted. (aeropagitica) 11:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Also thanks for the tip on preferences. Gnangarra 12:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

Many thanks for taking action, and also for notifying me on my talk page. Gsd2000 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Resume Page

Hi,

it wasn't me who changed the resume page. Yhere is one BS guy who tried to hijecked my account and now is faking my IP address. His real IP address is 68.168.232.174 and you can see that I am removing his affiliate links from wikiclassifieds.org as well.

thanks, alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getsolutions (talk • contribs)

My Myles Definition

This is from edxx3. Myles is not meant as a personal noun. It is not a personal attack (or it isn't meant to be). Please respond as soon as you can. Thank you and good bye, Edxx3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edxx3 (talk • contribs)

Respond to what, exactly? Please remember to be civil in your contributions and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You can offer definitions of words to Wiktionary for assessment instead. Words used in Myles (Slang Term) included; "Ugly, Strange, Abnormal, Freakish, Liar" as synonyms, which can hardly be viewed as complimentary to those with the eponymous Christian name. (aeropagitica) 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

About my Myles Definition

I did not consider about the people who HAVE the name. I realize this now.
Deepest Apologies.

Edxx3 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you please send me some sort of guidelines and rules?
I apologize for my previous updates. My sister put up the bad Myles definitions instead of my not bad but not good ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edxx3 (talk • contribs)

Re: How do I become an administrator?

I have a knack for updatring and improving many articles and deleting offensive material that was put on there.
A big fan of yours, Edxx3 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. If you want to become an administrator then you can read about the role at Wikipedia:Administrators. You need 2-3000 edits in the major spaces of Wikipedia and these edits should be helpful contributions such as finding references using reliable sources, fighting vandals and contributing encyclopedic information to articles. It is also very helpful to have between six and twelve months' experience of editing. I would start by reading the welcome salutation below and looking at the pages linked from there. You can also help the project by joining Wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:Esperanza, where like-minded editors can exchange help and advice. (aeropagitica) 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Is everybody inappropriate?

I don't understand why everyone uses inappropriate language and insults to (as I've heard) a fair and unbiased admin like (aeropagitica)? And right here I am not being sarcastic because my friends are all wikipedia members who say that there has been some inappropriate material that you have deleted.
Aeropagitiga and anyone else who uses this page may respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edxx3 (talk • contribs)