User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 1

←

Archive 5

Faraz Anwar

hi there for the past one month someone has been editing this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Faraz_Anwar again and again and putting up information which is ruining the image of the artist. I personally changed it many times but still someone changes it back to when i visit the article again. I as a fan of Faraz Anwar running www.farazanwarfan.tk and www.mizraabianz.com request you to delete Faraz Anwar and Mizraab articles from Wikipedia. you can confirm my identity from rameez@mizraabianz.com or simple visit this website www.mizraabianz.com to check my name in the credits as the site manager. thank you waiting for your quickest response. RamEEz

Are you the author of this article? Under the terms of the GFDL licence only the author can request the deletion of an article if it otherwise meets the criteria for a good Wikipedia article. If you are involved in an edit war with another editor then you can request that the page be protected from editing while you settle your differences. Please don't revert vandalism or other user's edits to the page more than three times in one twenty-four hour period, as this can lead to you being blocked for edit warring. If this is the case then let me know and I will look in to the matter later on. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been edited like more than five six times in one hour. I am requesting you again for the admin protection of this article as soon as possible. Please its a sincere request in favour of the artist. Kindly make it possible that no one can start this article again ever. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamEEz (talk • contribs)

I am looking at the edit history now. There does appear to have been some vandalism to the article from an IP address earlier today. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

check changes by:

64.105.147.98
213.42.21.77
213.42.2.22

can you just protect is so that no anonymous user can edit it? we have changed the page now and i think it look well organized now. i hope it stays like this RamEEz

Hello! I have reviewed the page and here are my thoughts. 64.105.147.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for 48 hours for vandalising the article more than three times in 24 hours. 213.42.21.77 (talk · contribs · count) has been warned against vandalism and can be blocked if they vandalise again. I don't consider that the page warrants semi-protection as the vandalism isn't overwhelming. What I suggest that you do instead is to report IP vandals to the administrator intervention page where they can be warned and dealt with appropriately. Semi-protection of this page can be reviewed if the vandalism is persistent. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot but i dont think you guys should wait for the user to damage the article again. Semi-Protection would have been better although i was thinking about full Protection. Anyways lets see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamEEz (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cicero's Pizza

Hi, just wondering if you'd had time to reconsider your vote on the AFD for Cicero's Pizza after the new information that has come to light that it is notable and does meet WP:CORP. Thanks. Gateman1997 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged regarding this article. Two of the sources for the article are unreliable, the blog and the reviews on the AOL cityguide. Reliable sources says: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." As for the remainder, the Courier article doesn't work for me and articles of the quality of [1], [2] and [3] don't really serve to demonstrate notability. Perhaps the AfD will be relisted as inconclusive by the closing editor. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you did overlook the San Jose Mercury News article I linked too (an unquestionably reliable news source) and the 9000+ Google hits the place gets. However I guess it's neither here nor there at this point since the VFD closed already. Gateman1997 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Valery Valerie (diver), Ron Tayler (diver)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this is my first ever vandalism varning i wikipedia and I must object a bit for getting it, since I put a speedy delete on the articles myself before you varned me, so no point in warning me really, not sure why you did it. Stefan 08:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a warning, it is a standard message to let you know that your requests have been actioned. No warning was issued in your edit history either. You have not been marked as a vandal by me or any other editor, so far as I know. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Sounds like it to me but nevermind, sorry for the trouble, I assign those tags to people that do obvious vandalism/test edits the first time, I asked for a page to be delted and did not expect to get the same message, but if that is normal, then nevermind. Thanks! Stefan 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

Sorry for interrupting you, I have seen your message many times in someone's discussion's page. But You just copied whole thing. I'm so sorry to say that your message is so confusing like you copied someone's message, not only response. Next time, Please only put your response, after you reply some Wikipedian's message in this discussion page. *~Daniel~* 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I thought it was good to also put the question or comment given when your reply. And I'm sure how it is confusing. It's good to put the question or comment and the answer so I can know the question and the answer and you can remember the question more easily and compare it to the comment. ForestH2 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Were either of you two talking to me? The above exchange appears to be a private conversation that has spilled out on to my Talk page by mistake. Just in case you were talking to me and wanted my views on Talk page etiquette, you can find official guidance at Wikipedia:Talk_page#How_to_keep_a_two-way_conversation_readable. I prefer to keep contributors' exchanges in one place for ease of reference at a later date. Please be civil when trying to tell other editors and administrators how to conduct themselves with other users! Policy is very easy to find using Google's advanced search features. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was reading Daniel's message and I kind of confused why it's confusing to have the question/comment and the answer. Yeah I was talking to you. What do you mean civil? I think my first comment was civil. Wasn't it? Or were you talking to Daniel? ForestH2 | + | √ | - 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to Daniel - I should have made that clear, apologies. It reads as if I am being told what to do without any prior discussion, most confusing! Still, the guidelines are there for you to refer to. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed that Daniel never communicated with and went through your contributions and just decided to give you the note. I sort of wonder why it's so confusing. And I really can't even understand his message because of his grammar ForestH2 | + | √ | - 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature template

Hi aeropagitica,

I like your signature scheme a lot -- it's very recognisable! Would you mind if I used it myself with a different color and font? Cheers, Netsnipe 05:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! If you want to use my sig as an inspiration for your own then please feel free to use it as a basis for experimentation. I looked at many signatures before I came up with this one, so don't limit yourself to just mine! (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration aeropagitica. What do you think of my new signature? = ) Cheers, Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks nice and neat! Careful about the length of the signature. Some people have been criticised about having signatures that include lots of markup, lots meaning more than three lines. Wikipedia:Signature#Length gives some advice. I'm thinking of reducing my signature markup in light of this. Best wishes and good editing! (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Bite

I appreciate your comment on the AFD for Child Bite. Fact is, I placed db-band on the page, but one of your counterparts overrode it. So it's going through an obligatory AFD. Cheers! --NMChico24 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for signing my deletion reason for me. I can't believe I neglected that. --NMChico24 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, a small difference of opinion in the deletion of the page but basic agreement in the lack of notability of the subject. Thanks for letting me know, I will change to a basic delete. No worries about the signature, I have done it myself before now! (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for the support on my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad you considered me to be a good candidate, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Let me know at my talk page any time if you have any comments on how I'm doing as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello (aeropagitica)/Archive 7, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand reduction

Hello! Please don't remove AfD notices from articles. This is to be done by the closing admin. If you wanted to recind the AfD nomination then this should have been mentioned in the discussion itself. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD nomination I removed was my own, done after the article was completely rewritten. In any case, I am unable to determine if you are asking me to heed this request as a personal favor, or per Wikipedia policy, or as an informal reflection of "the way things are done around here". WP:AFD does not mention that not removing one's own AfD nomination is policy or even a suggestion, and if this is the case, it ought to be changed to reflect that, as that page mentions many other things that are far less significant. Regarding your suggestion that I mention my desire to withdraw the nomination in the discussion, I note that I did (search for the text "Withdraw Nomination" in the discussion, signed by me). Thanks for your attention Reswobslc 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The notice is given in {{Drmafd}}. The closest guideline that I can find at short notice is in Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability: "Please realize that while you may personally dislike having an AFD tag on your favorite article, it is not actually doing any harm, and will be gone in less than a week.". The process was referred to by Arthur Rubin. The correct course of action for a non-admin participant in an AfD is given in WP:AfD#What_to_do_after_an_AfD_discussion_has_passed_with_a_confirmation.3F, i.e. nothing, as the process will continue.

I see that you asked a question about deleting the AfD tag but that no answer was forthcoming in the AfD debate. A good place to ask questions about policy and procedures is the village pump, where advice will be offered at short notice. You make a good point about the removal of tags before the five day limit not being explicit, so I will see to it that this is made clear in the process. (aeropagitica) (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You may have touched on a good point that's highly relevant to the AfD debate you're referring to, though I am not sure if you're talking about the specific case of one removing his own AfD tag. That is because the notice you've quoted is talking about if someone else AfD's an article you wrote, not if you're the person who AfD'd someone else's article and then said whoops and changed your mind, and appears to be of low relevance to the mistake I made. The AfD template clearly says on it, "please don't remove this until the discussion is over". But a little bit of selective interpretation applies when one considers removing the AfD tag shortly after he placed it there himself. Just like we all know a red light means stop, but if the light is broken and never turns green, it doesn't mean sit there and run out of gas hoping it eventually does. Certainly I will think harder and review more carefully before nominating an AfD thus eliminating the need to quickly rescind one, and this should never happen again to me now that I know, but I respond simply to draw attention to the fact that the rule is unclear or undefined in the first place and is likely to trip up other newbies as long as it stays that way. Reswobslc 23:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your sig

Forgive the oath, but, holy shit! Are you aware your sig requires 296 characters to create (not including the date)? I would be surprised if I was the first to mention this (in fact, on some pages, such as administrators' noticeboards, it'll be refactored for page length), and I do have a way to lop off a few characters as a start:

[[User:(aeropagitica)|'''(aeropagitica)''']][[User talk:(aeropagitica)|'''(talk)''']]

has 241 characters (which is still huge, BTW) and produces (aeropagitica)(talk)

See WP:SIG#Important considerations for more detail and, if I can be of further help, let me know. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello and no need to swear, old chap! You are the first person to mention this to me but I am well aware of the length of my sig. If you look at [[4]] further up this Talk page, I made a comment to Netsnipe to the effect that I was experimenting with reducing its length. Funnily enough, I had come across your pages and was looking at some of the solutions that you had offered with changes to my monobook.js page! Your edit above is close to a version that I have been playing with. Thanks for taking the time over this, I do appreciate it. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL sorry ;) Anyway, you should know that different users have differing ideas of what constitutes "unnecessary exposition" and, at that length, you will find it changed on some pages, as I've noted. Thought you'd appreciate the heads-up, and happy editing! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed down to 227 characters now, with your help! Best wishes and I hope that we meet again in another nice collaboration soon :-) (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help (if you're wondering, someone helped me and I saw an opportunity to return the favor). Happy editing! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Louvre was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

- Davodd 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a complete farther back revert in the WP:AID page as some strange glish happened and it was mass lising nominating pages. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bot didn't have you listed as an admin for whatever reason, but someone just made sure you were added as such. Kevin_b_er 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, adminlist only gets updated every now and then (basically when I remeber to tell it too) - so that might have been the problem -- Tawker 16:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Hi there:

I'm writing to thank you for your support of my RfA. It's quite a bit belated because I've been off of Wikipedia for about a week due to work and illness. My RfA, unfortunately, didn't go through, but I got some good feedback, so it's all to the good.

Once again, thank you.

— DLJessup (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

iLiKETRAiNS

This is a non-notable band according to the criteria set out in WP:BAND. One notable indie album or two notable major label albums; a national tour; heavy rotation on a national radio station. If there is no evidence of one or more of these for the band then perhaps Myspace would be a better location for this information rather than an encylopedia, until the criteria are satisfied. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your comments. I wish I could prove that this band are notable - they are more than just a local group, for sure. However I am just a ruthless "delete" voter on AfD discussions for non-notable bands so now how many wannabes (some warranted, some not) are trying to find a place here.

I will scour the internet now to find sources for them, and if I cannot satisfy the necessary then obviously I will bow to your decision. doktorb _words^deeds 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Don't take what I write as a decision, just the questions that any researcher would want to have answered when they read an article - i.e. "What is notable about this band?" If there is noting notable then the article isn't up to standard; if there is evidence then it should be included in order to make the article useful. It's all quite basic, really! (aeropagitica) (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Milecastle

Hello! Is there anything in your seperate Milecastle articles that makes each of them unique? Apart from the grid reference and the date of excavation they seem to be identical. The Milecastle article is just a stub at the moment. Could the information on the individual milecastles go in to this article instead in order to bring it above the level of stub? (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They are all unique in the same way that there were four Beatles. Some are still standing, some gone, some excavated, some not, their dimensions, distances apart, manner of construction etc all differ. However, in the end, if you don't like this level of detail, I'll take them down. It is only a 'proof of concept' using five milecastles, and tying them in with the Getmapping aerial photo coverage on Windows Live Local, pictures of each site on Flickr (all of which I am going to publish under a CC license once I have finished uploading them, and one each of which would be tied to the Wikipedia page). Each medium gives something to the others, effectively.

Mcbishop 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is enough detail to differentiate each milecastle then individual articles are no problem. I was thinking that if the articles couldn't be expanded beyond the initial stubs then fifty-plus stubs wouldn't be of the same research value as one milecastle article with the significant features of all seperate milecastles written in to it. It's great that this is a part of an ongoing project. I look forward to reading more details! (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Page removing

How can I remove page with incorrect name? In category some how exists incorrect name Amos (satllite) instead of Amos (satellite). Thank you in advance. Shmuliko 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are the author then you can tag the page with {{db-author}} and it will be deleted. I have deleted it for you. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Shmuliko 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another signature question

Ok, so if you look at my signature page, you can see I am having a few problems. Basically what I want is everything you see in my signature now, except in the box like the (talk) part of your signature (white background, purple letters) and of course, the same colour as the (talk) part. If you can help, thanks ahead of time; if you can't, at least you tried. (Concept of {{smile}} goes here.) —It's Th e Cliff ! 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me play around with this for you! (aeropagitica) (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I have left three options for you to examine on User:CliffHarris/sig. The first is my preferred choice as it is the least amount of code at 141 characters. The second incorporates your choice of cursor and some of your link options, which makes it larger at 337 characters. This runs over four lines and may well upset a few users when they go to edit pages that you have signed. The final choice is 434 characters long and runs over five lines! Whoever grinned and bore option 2 will probably chew their lips off when they encounter that little gem :-) I would urge you to read WP:SIG#Length and choose the most economic signature that you can, in order to benefit your fellow editors. Thank you very much for asking for my opinion! I hope that you like some of the options that I have provided. Please feel free to ask any further questions that cross your mind. Bear in mind the time difference, as it is past my bedtime now! Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe I'll just use what I have right now until I get my name changed on my birthday. —It's Th e Cliff ! 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Thanks for signing up to help out with admin coaching! Your first trainee is SP-KP. Your fellow coach is The Gerg. I suggest you start off by introducing yourself to your trainee, and sort out details like coaching location (I find a central user subpage, and sometimes IRC depending on practicalities, the best). Let me know if you have any questions about the coaching. Cheers, Petros471 13:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. Basically, I was prompted to sign up for admin coaching when an existing admin sae that I had expressed an interest in admin-type issues (it was semi-protection, I think) and noticed that I had an edit count that was approaching five figures, and he thought I was an "obvious" admin candidate. I did't really (and still don't) have a view on whether I should be an admin or not, but I decided to go and find out about admin coaching, and either way, it seems a useful way to help me understand Wikipedia culture. I figure that process, policy and so on are easy to learn from reading up on them, but culture isn't something that people make the same effort to document properly, so anything that can help bring me more up to speed with it is welcome. I don't have anything specific to ask right now, but any wisdom you can impart about Wikipedia culture would be welcome. I like your idea of a single page for this, let's do that. SP-KP 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help on Astronomy

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Astronomy was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by →Lzy Genius 12:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.

Speedy deletion criteria

Hello! Your userpage says that you are new here. Are you familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion? If not, please take a look at the link and bear the information in mind when reviewing new pages. David N. Carley and David carley could be marked {{db-bio}} or {{db-repost}} and deleted without having to go down the proposed deletion route. These and the other csd tags are useful to bear in mind when performing this patrol. The review process would be seriously logjammed otherwise, if all articles had to be reviewed over a five-day period. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm a regular new page patroller. I left a msg at User_talk:Dncarley#Autobiographical_articles b/c I thought they were marginal. I'm still refining my sense of what to prod, what to db, and what to haul off to AfD. Thanks for your input, though.--Kchase T 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MCCARTHY - Why deleted?

I read WP:POINT very carefully and it's not obvious to me how I violated that. I really don't get how my thoughtfully developed contribution could be misconstrued as vandalism. Thank you. -Advocron 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, entitling a page WP:x suggests that it is a policy or a guideline, as with WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc. This implies that the content of article x should either be included in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines considered as a criticism of such. Secondly, McCarthyism is a perjorative political term and is an explicit comparison between the actions of Wikipedia editors and those involved in the McCarthy hearings.

Thirdly, the content of your article is entirely your point-of-view. This violates WP:NPOV. Your thoughts on Wiki policies and procedures should be given at the appropriate policy Talk pages and not placed in an article under the guise of policy. The WP:POINT aspect comes in to play when the article is deleted. Writing an article criticising those who delete articles with the expectation that it will be deleted is making a WP:POINT and is an act of vandalism. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind when creating articles in future and please do not make points when you do so.

I was hoping that the article would become a policy or guideline, although I can see that I probably went about it the wrong way, judging from your highly adverse reaction. I didn't mean McCarthyism is the political sense, but rather in the sense of "unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition" (dictionary.com). I'm basically just trying to initiate a policy against cavalier citings of guideline articles. It's not a point of view. I think most editors will agree that some editors are a little too freewheeling with the guidline citings. The furthest thing from my mind was "criticising those who delete articles with the expectation that it will be deleted." -Advocron 07:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This correspondance is now closed. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)