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.
There's a backlog on the page of over an hour and a half. I don't think any admins are watching it. Your'e the first admin I found who's contribs clearly show you're online. Just a request, a suggestion. -Patstuart22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm probably not going to pass, but I'll leave it up anyway. Withdrawling, to me, seems like quitting, and as there's no real reason to withdrawl, I'll just leave it up. But thanks anyway for taking the time to give me your advice, I really appreciate it! -- P.B. Pilhet/Talk22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem! RfA can be a harsh process, with all of our faults and foibles dragged out in to the open for all to kick around. Some people can take it badly but you seem to be quite relaxed about the process. Best wishes and happy editing! (aeropagitica)22:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I notice from User_talk:Brianl2008 that he had created this page before, at least once, and you deleted it. Since he seems to be persistent in this, would you mind salting the earth? Thanks for your time. --Storkk16:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep erasing my entry for Ultimate Ping Pong? It is an actual sport, and though it isn't played by millions, I feel it warrants an entry on wikipedia. If you feel it should be nominated for deletion, that is fine-but at least let me challenge that and allow discussion about it. MaroonFrog 14:01, 12 October 2006
Hi. I'm right in the middle of transferring the material on "Hamlet the Character" from the "Hamlet" page to this new Prince Hamlet page. The reason for this is consistency: characters in Shakespeare's plays (some quite minor!) typically have their own page. Shouldn't Prince Hamlet, the most well-known of them? — Jrmccall22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that a Wikiproject or a personal project; is there a Talk page discussion about giving characters their own articles? You can use the {{ inuse }} tag to show that it is a work-in-progress and avoid accidental redirects/deletions, etc. Regards, (aeropagitica)22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-re your message on my talk page, sorry, that "Freddiex" thing is a pure mistake, and should be deleted. i just dont know how. Stevewk00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why did you block User talk:198.83.126.254? I don't see any obvious vandalism after 3 October, unless my only basic knowledge of astronomy prevents me from preceiving the vandalism to the various topics today. (If you're wondering why I'm asking, I saw this reported on AIV when I reported someone else, and am surprised/confused by this block.) TransUtopian17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for your enquiry! The reason for the blocking is becuase the IP editor was adding many unsourced and unverified references to astronomical articles, such as [1], [2] and [3] to the Astronomical object article. The reason that these edits are vandalism is because the article doesn't mix hypothetical objects with measured and studied objects. Hypothetical objects should be listed in List of hypothetical astronomical objects instead. The same with this edit, which mixes the now-disproven with the actual objects in the Saturnian system. The reason why this is a block and not a blatantvandal warning is because of the extent of the edits and that the IP editor has received repeated final warnings but has still persisted. If they choose to use the unblock function and can make a reasonable case as to the validity of their edits then the block can be lifted. I am quite prepared to admit fault if the evidence can be presented to me but the evidence that I have shown above leads me to believe otherwise. Regards, (aeropagitica)18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I see now that the edits to Astronomical object are antithetical to the first sentence on that page, but are the edits to the other pages also vandalism? For example, the Saturn's natural satellites diff adds a disproven body to one already there. Should that be reverted (it's still top) or the sentence removed? There's several other edits that haven't been reverted that I'm not sure if they're good or bad.
Also, the repeated final warnings resulted from ten edits around 01:00 UTC 3 October, such as this one. The IP's talk page history shows no warning or discussion with the user re: the Astronomical object edits. Those and this one were bad, but the others, including one which was reverted, seem like good edits.
I'm also quite prepared to admit fault not being certain the other edits are good or at least good faith, or if there's something else I'm missing, but please consider what I've said. TransUtopian18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You make some good points. It is possible that not all of the edits are vandalistic in intent or result; it is possible that they were all made in good faith. The point about contributing to Wikipedia is that that the contributions are backed-up by sources, references and citations, where appropriate. The block was made on the basis of systematic inclusion of theoretical astronomical bodies in an article about actual astronomical bodies. The systematic nature of the edits demonstrates intent and subtle vandalism is still vandalism.
Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No one can do everything. What we can do is to check our facts and also ensure that our edits are made appropriately. If you have a question about an editor's decision, you can either ask the editor directly or be bold and confirm or revert the edit based upon reliable sources that you have checked. The burden of proof is upon the editor including the facts. If they cannot supply a reliable source for their assertions then the facts can be questioned by anyone. All articles are open for review all the time. You are not at fault for questioning some edits rather than others. You are also not at fault for either attempting to verify questionable edits or marking those edits as requiring verification by other editors. Regards, (aeropagitica)21:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the comments. I can see how you came to your decision. I'll wait to see what an outside voice might have to say upon review just for completeness. If there are no timely comments then I'll just repeal the review and resubmit the AfD per your suggestion. One result of the original AfD was a creation of the relevant election's article (which should encompass the purposes of the Rosenthal article without needing the candidate article, thus avoiding any WP:BIO concerns) and so that could be taken into consideration on a new AfD. ju66l3r22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA thanks
Hi, (aeropagitica)! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)
The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I just started the article but had to leave but I was going to continue work on the article. Anyways, Ideazon is not my company, nor am I affiliated with them. I don't even own any of their products! In case you don't happen to know what is Ideazon, it's a well known company that produces gaming accessories, much like Logitech and is affiliated with many hardware companys, like nVidia. I don't see any thing wrong in adding an article for Ideazon. If you think I'm wrong, I will not write the article, it's cool man. ;) --Anas Salloum21:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to develop an article on a company or business, please read the criteria set out in WP:CORP for guidance. You can develop an article in a Sandbox before publication where it will be free from interference by other editors. Please read the guidelines carefully before you make your decision, so as not to waste time and effort. (aeropagitica)21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am a new Wikipedian. I will use a sandbox next time. ;) I read the criteria in that page and I think it's OK for me to go ahead and create the article. Is it alright? Thanks for your help. --Anas Salloum22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about re-posting the ATTRACT article. As there was no sign that it had been deleted I assumed I had forgot to save the article!
Why it was deleted? Ok it wasn't particularly great, but I was going back to add to it. Should I have indicated it was a 'stub'? ATTRACT is a significant contribution to clinical knowledge management and probably the oldest formalised Q&A service for primary care.--Jonbrassey07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
As I explained, the article was deleted because it was a repost of a previously-deleted article. That article was deleted because it was non-encyclopedic and instead read as blatant advertising or spam. (aeropagitica)15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the bio, but I'd seen his contribute to USENET quite a few times over the years, so I decided to add him. I guess I hadn't added enough for even a stub. Autarch14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! You are correct the biography of the subject as it stood was not enough to assert their notability. The guidelines for a notable biography can be found at WP:BIO, linked in my original communication. If you feel that you have a subject that is sufficiently notable to pass these guidelines then I suggest that you a) gather together reliable sources; b) create a user sub-page to develop your article and c) have another editor review your work before publication in order to improve it. Regards, (aeropagitica)15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say thanks to you two (Redvers, (aeropagitica)) for the detail in comments you put on my RFA. It's surprisingly helpful to know what I need to improve upon, and that encouragement will hopefully be put to good use. I'll take what you said and be back next year with what I hope will be a stronger case for adminship. :) --BradBeattie02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Side note, would the two of you mind if I come back to you in a couple months time before I re-RFA? I'd like to know if I'm on the right track before I put myself up for voting next time. --BradBeattie03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I don't mind you coming back at some point in the future. You can also request a editor review to gain the opinion of other Wikipedians before you run another RfA. Regards, (aeropagitica)04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The editor review reference should be helpful. Thanks again for your feedback. I'll let you know in a couple months time when I'm thinking of self-nominating for RFA again. --BradBeattie04:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Please report vandals to WP:AIV rather than to an individual admins' Talk page, in case they are away from their computer for a time. (aeropagitica)14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw on WP:AIV that you indefblocked this IP for vandalism. However, a whois goes to a cable internet company, which may use dynamic IPs. It might not be a good idea to indefblock this IP right off the bat. --Coredesat20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a softblock, so logged-in editors should be able to work. I can reduce the block if you think that this would be wiser in this instance. (aeropagitica)20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that it was a softblock, but shortening it is probably a good idea. I'd recommend reducing it to maybe a week or two at most, then go on and give a longer block if the IP starts vandalizing again. --Coredesat20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you've been spammed, but I hope you'll find for a good reason. I've know you are active around the recent changes arena (normally having beaten me to a revert), and I'm currently looking for help with a new project. I would like to harmonise all the warnings and templates we issue, with goal to creating a standard look, format and content to the messages. Even if you use VP, VS or any of the other vandal tools out there, I still feel this is worthwhile. Please visit here for further information, and leave me a message if you're interested, or tell me to get lost ;) if you haven't the time. Regards Khukri(talk . contribs)13:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey (aeropagitica), thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
speedy delete Marden-Donnelly
In the arbitration workshop for Rachel Marsden, Fred Bauder says this page can be put up for speedy delete. Now, I don't know why he didn't do it himself, and you may or may not want to do it after looking at the arbcom page.Arthur Ellis22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
search for date of birth albert einstiein on google (or very similar search term) and it has al ink to that, Albert+Einstein, so i added a redirect. pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ to enable editors to respond easily. The page wasn't a redirect, it contained a link to the correct article. The search engine on WP is efficient enough to find the article without additional characters, as is google. (aeropagitica)22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So bringing gay rights to a school via violent campaigns on teaching staff is un-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyNrth (talk • contribs)
Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, to make it easier for editors to respond to comments on their Talk pages. Secondly, the biography was non-notable according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO, which is the reason why it was deleted. (aeropagitica)23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Lovemarks
Sorry. That was a typo. It should have been Lovemarks and I have fixed it now. Thanks for the feedback. You guys are fast.
Cheers."ideas are the currency of the future" - Kevin Roberts 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The article Lovemarks doesn't include any description of the product/concept or a reference to its notability. As such it is a candidate for deletion as reposted and non-notable material. If you can include this information as soon as possible then it may be possible to save the article. Regards, (aeropagitica)00:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your feedback. I am learning by doing. I've added a few things to the entry and changed the text a little. Will this be enough as a start? I have also initiated a "discussion". I am trying to learn by doing.
– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - Kevin Roberts01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello aeropagitica! Thank you for supporting me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just leave me a message. Thanks again!--thunderboltz(Deepu)08:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
(aeropagitica), thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and complimentary words on my RFA! --plange21:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted my page List of Clergy. See Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_Clergy. Please inform me why did you delete it? why did you delete it so speedy? why wasn't the reason I posted to keep the page sufficient to keep the page? If I want to post Joshua Toulmin in a list for his occupation and his occupation is clergy, where do you suggest I post it? If I created a new list "List of notable Clergy," would you find that acceptable? If not, could you give me some guidance on this. Thanks for helping with Wikipedia -- Jreferee03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason given was listcruft. A page listing all of the clergymen on Wikipedia would be huge and essentially unmaintainable. How would you know that it was complete and up-to-date? The example that you give above exists in several categories. This would be a better place to locate such a list rather than in the article space. The categories already exist, broken down by faith. This allows users to search for appropriate articles in a directed fashion. A list of the entire clergy doesn't allow such a directed search; it may even be so large as to not load properly in some users browsers. (aeropagitica)09:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
Thank you for the information. But still I am not sure as to where I can warn these anonymous users... since they dont have a talk page.. Please advise.--IndianCow13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding a warning to an empty user Talk page will in effect create that page. They will receive a notification that they have new messages as we do. Regards, (aeropagitica)13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
