User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 16

Thank you

I've finally had the time during my long Wikibreak to thank the voters and commentors on my my RfA last month, and I thank you! I'll try again as previously planned in the late of spring, and hopefully I'll win it. When I get off this multi-month Wikibreak I'll be back to the Wikipedia, visting xfD everyday in addition. I was glad to see that you wrote a bit on why you were neutral on my nomination, unlike most. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me on being a good Wikipedian or administrator? Thanks again, X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dufus (band)

I was recently told by another admin that I overuse the db-bio tag and to be careful for assertion of notability in the future. No offense to that other admin, but I would like a second opinion. On the Dufus (band) article, you switched my db-bio to a prod. I looked for an assertion of notability but could not find any. There was no mention of notability of the band, it's members, songs, or albums (other than they've recorded 8 of them...and even for those, there was no verifiability or assertion that they were anything more than basement tapedeck recordings). Am I overusing the db-bio or being less than cautious with articles? Thanks for your advice on this matter. ju66l3r 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The reason why I switched the speedy tag to a prod version is because there was an assertion of notability in the article, even though it doesn't quote sources that can be verified. The prod allows the author or other interested editor five days to produce verifiable sources in order to assert the notability of the band. It can be deleted after this time if the proof is not forthcoming. Without knowing your editing history, it is hard to say whether or not you do apply a speedy tag inappropriately. The best advice right now is for you to read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and take a look at Category:Speedy deletion templates to examine the range of offically-approved speedy tags that are on offer. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the Dufus (band) wiki to include further information about the band, as well as external links (eg album reviews from PopMatters. However, You also applied a speedy deletion tag to the Ball of Design album wiki, and it has been deleted before I was even aware that the tag was applied. I havee links to a PopMatters review of the album, would that be suffice to have the article reinstated, and if so, can I retrieve the material I already wrote on teh article?--Macca7174 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The speedy tag on the album article was applied by Ju66l3r. I will place the contents of the deleted article in to a sub-page of your user pages in order for you to edit the text. (aeropagitica) 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. How will I know when it is acceptable to reinstate the article? I assume it's when (if) the Dufus (band) Article for Deletion dispute is resolved.--Macca7174 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been reinstated and is now under discussion at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dufus (band) page. The votes so far are keep, so it may well pass in five days' time. (aeropagitica) 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge whos who

My article was deleted before I had time to add to it. There are several Who's Who's listed, and I merely wanted to add to the list, please see Marquis_Who’s_Who —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayft (talk • contribs)

Volkovsky Mikhailov

Hi. Put simply I think this is a hoax article. There is no record of him whatsoever on Google and whenever I or User:R'n'B try and put up a template voicing our suspicions it is deleted almost imediately by the article's creator. Attempts to discuss the matter on the talkpage are also blanked out straight away. Wonder if you could have a look? Thanks--Edchilvers 22:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volkovsky Mikhailov - now deleted. (aeropagitica) 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help :) --Edchilvers 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however very much appreciate your comments, and your assistance with posting user stats. Please rest assured that I am still very much in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again, --Elonka 08:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Please..

Aeropagitica, I need you to help me by locking "Calgary Science School" from editing, or blocking 139.142.135.106 permanently from editing anything. Someone at my school is editing many pages with useless slander. Take a look at 139.142.135.106's talk, and you can see all the trouble the IP is causing. Yes, the IP is registered to the school and could stop all editing from the school computers, but the teachers have single IP's and they are the only ones that should have access from CSS. Please do something about this and let me know on my talk page. I'm currently dealing with our AP to solve the problem. Thanks, Ardo 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, --MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcoming Users

Hi. On reflection I suppose I am a little too soft on certain users but I think its important that newly registered Wikipedians get some sort of welcome when they join up which outlines the basic principles of Wikipedia. I didn't get one when I was new and I made load of mistakes. Having been active in the newpage patrol for a little while now I get the impression that most of the vandalism is misguided as opposed to malicious, with users mistakening Wikipedia for a sort of Myspace to promote themselves or their High School bands etc. I even saw one 'article' the other day of a guy paying tribute to his girlfriend following an argument between them! I also feel that some of the standard 'warning' messages (in particular the one which refers to a 'test' working and the sandbox) can only prove to be confusing to new users. Perhaps I am being woolly and misguided but it is my belief that a friendly greeting outlining the main points about Wikipedia is far more likely to elicit a positive response from otherwise well intentioned newbies than a big cross in a red box threatening to bam them straight off. I do however take your point and will refrain in future from welcoming obviously malicious users and blatent nonsense-vandals.--Edchilvers 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not try welcoming users who have created accounts over twelve hours old, or those who have appeared on the recent changes log? Then you can check their edits and see if they are being malicious or are acting out of ignorance and give the appropriate guidance. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Scallen

I am going to restart the article. I just went for supper, give me some time, heh heh! He is notable, mostly for his photography, he has taken promotional pictures of bands such as Green Day, Fugazi, and pretty much any north american punk band from the last 15 years. Give me a chance to put some sources.. Dan Carkner 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Create the article in a user sub-page and gather the sources before attempting to recreate the page. This should prevent its' speedy deletion. Pay attention to WP:BIO and Wikipedia:reliable sources to ensure that the standards are adhered to. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening an Office in Brazil

Sorry, I was rushing to cut and edit and was not paying attention to messages. It is my first approach to Wikipedia. Intend to re-do the article in different way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hglopez (talk • contribs)

User Block: Donnyjays6

Can you update the user talk:Donnyjays6 block... he's been blocked for "a period of Joe Sakic" *grin* CMacMillan 22:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! The WP toolbar doesn't work with Firefox 2.0, so the occassional mistake has been made with all of the manual typing required to warn and block editors this evening. Let's hope someone patches it soon! (aeropagitica) 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW help

Hi Aero,

You recently said you maybe willing to help with the user message and template harmonistion program. We will be starting the actual changes, we hope within the next week. But prior to that, what we would like from yourself is instead of an evening of vandal fighting or patrolling recent changes, you monitor the RC page for those actually doing the reverts and leaving user page messages. We would like to make as many people aware of the fact that the templates they use are going to change. If you could seek out the RCP's and Cut n Paste the following message to their talk page that would be appreciated, or reworded as you see fit. Cheers. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

==Upcoming template changes==

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit [[WP:UW|WikiProject user warnings]] and harmonisation discussion [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/templates|pages]] to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~~~~

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Block for Vanadalism Based on POV Edits

I've noticed that you blocked anon 71.240.246.79 for 72 hours citing vandalism. I beleive the anon user may have been involved in a POV dispute with a suspected sockpuppet/meatpuppet, and may have been blocked unfairly. While I was compiling evidence against this sockpuppet master, I discovered your block. While I don't suggest and unblock, it might be worth a second look. Here is the sock evidence page for reference. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010. I'll watchlist your page so you can reply here. Regards, Yankees76 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have looked over your case regarding Messenger 2010 and I agree that there may be a point of equivocation regarding the block. This doesn't negate the edit war that was being pursued over the articles-in-question, but I am always open to listen to a reasoned debate and I can unblock if the editor can demonstrate that they were a victim of a sockpuppet vandal. Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll let that editor decide if they want to do that or not, I only came across the block while reviewing Messenger2010 and the sock connections and thought I'd share my opinion. Thanks. Yankees76 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature help

How do I make my signature similar to your excellent one?? SunStar Net 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, aeropagitica! btw, where did you get your username from?? mine is from my university business systems project! --SunStarNet; 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The story of my username. Regards, (aeropagitica) 19:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the colour for blue to add to my signautre?? SunStarNet; 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Web colors will tell you all you need to know. (aeropagitica) 19:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks! SunStar Net 19:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ombudsman RfA

Hi, I noticed that the nominator had attempted to transclude the nom into the page, but the nomination page hadn't existed. It didn't seem to me that he knew how to create the nomination, so I dropped him a note on his talk page with instructions. I did take a quick glance at Ombudsman's contrbs before supporting, but I'll admit I didn't notice the ArbCom case until it was brought up by you (thanks for that BTW). I was not aware of the restrictions to voting before the questions were answered, and I'll be sure to abide by that in the future. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Cheers, Mike | Trick or Treat 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries! It's not so much a restriction as waiting for evidence to be presented upon which we can base our opinions. That's why I wondered if you had a hand in preparing the candidate beforehand - lots of people do it, it's like getting someone to review your CV before you apply for a job! That might have explained the lack of a mention of the ArbCom case too. Happy editing and I look forward to working with you in the future. (aeropagitica) 20:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for your followup. I don't normally support RfAs until I've read the questions, but from what I saw this looked like a trustworthy contributor. BTW, as you probably noticed from my talk page RyanGerbil is going to be preparing a nom for me on Nov. 9. I was wondering what your position might be at this point? I'm involved in some more WikiProjects and am very close to 3,000 edits now. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: 13 Hour Drive deletion

Hello,

I don't even know if I am doing this correctly, but I wanted to inquire about the deletion of a page that was being created. The other day I was creating this page for some musicians and it was deleted. I thought that I did it incorrectly and re did it, however, it was deleted again and apparently I was said to be vandalizing! Sorry about that, but I wasn't aware that I was doing anything of harm! Anyhow, I read further and noticed that it was blocked and it is protected(?). I wanted to know if there is anyway to unblock this and be able to continue my posting. Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you in advance for your help! --13hourdrive 01:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This page was deleted because the band is non-notable, according to the criteria set out in WP:Music. Specifically, the band has not released an album on a big major or indie label as yet, where Wikipedia requires two major-label or one indie releases reaching Gold status. No other claims of notability were mentioned. The repeated recreation of non-notable articles is considered vandalism, which is why you were blocked temporarily and the article was deleted and protected. Why not create a Myspace profile for the band until they reach notable status? (aeropagitica) 08:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Big shiny welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Firefly WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Firefly's coverage of topics.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our style guidelines outline some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow Browncoat, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Keep flyin'plange 01:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and semi-protection

Question from a new admin: Neither the sockpuppet nor semi-protection policies mention what to do in a situation in which an article is being disruptively edit-warred by a number of socks. I would like to semi-protect the articles in question to prevent the socks from circumventing the 3RR and generally being disruptive (with edit summaries such as "Checkmate" and an account created to parody the other party in the edit-war). The socks are all blocked, but the puppetteer most often edits anonymously with a dynamic IP that always begins with "63.17". Semi-protection for the articles in question seems to be called for, but I am not sure if it is allowed in this situation. What would you do? (Relevant pages are Biological Value, Designer Whey Protein, PDCAAS, Soy protein, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010.) --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 02:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if you can demonstrate that the socks are all puppets of one puppeteer then that individual is breaking the three revert rule and can be blocked. If they all originate from an IP range then that IP range can be blocked in order to cut the vandalism off at the point-of-origin. This looks like x.x.x.0/24.. Be careful with this as you can hit innocent editors as well. Specific IP addresses would be better. Semi-protection: "A page can be semi-protected by an administrator in response to vandalism from multiple anonymous or newly-created accounts, where blocking them individually is not a solution.". I hope that this is of some assistance to you! Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Personal Attack on Georgia Hobbs

You sent me a message regarding a personal attack on a person, I do not see how this is a personal attack at all, if you had taken the time to read who she is you would of found that it Georgia Hobbs is a fictional charcter from the TV series the Bill and I feel quite offended having taken the time to write such an article to have it deleted. Read this and tell me which bits are personal attacks if there is a such thing on a fictional chractor, written with facts of the Bill official website.

Deleted Article- She is not a real person but a charcter of the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leedsunited 454 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, this makes it easier to respond to you. Secondly, please do not place the contents of an article on my Talk page, a link is sufficient, as above. Thirdly, your article at no point mentions a fictional character or The Bill and to all intents and purposes appears to be a character assassination on the individual. Please develop your articles in a Sandbox before posting them. You should also refer to Wikipedia:Article development for more details. (aeropagitica) 11:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zombie Farm(2006 Indie Film)

I would like to know how exactly i should correct the article. I see it as a simple article for a movie. Njschwinn 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Please remember to include a link to the article that you wish to discuss as an aid to memory. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films). A low-budget amateur film posted on to Youtube is far from notable. (aeropagitica) 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spammer you blocked is back

Hi (aeropagitica). You blocked 24.165.95.36 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) on 2006-10-27 for spamming. Well they're back and just added the same link to the same article.[1] I know this is an IP address, but since it's a direct allocation, and its only edits appear to have been to add external links, I was wondering if you would think about blocking them for a little longer. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 18:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Now tagged with {{blatantvandal}}. They will be blocked if they vandalise again. Don't forget to place vandal alerts on WP:AIV in case I or other admins are away from our computers for a period of time. This will ensure a rapid response. Regards, (aeropagitica) 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (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. // AntiVandalBot 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Just dropping a quick note to say hi and to show my appreciation for a fellow garage band rager. You seem to also patrol for non-notable bands and musicians that wiggle their way here from myspace. Keep up the good work :-) Elomis 22:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they keep popping up all over the place! I do wish them well and tell them about Myspace if they don't already know. Perhaps one of them will make it back as a notable band one day! Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
• If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:E Pluribus Anthony

I ask that you restore this. Recently at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/E Pluribus Anthony it was determined that this user has created abusive sockpuppets and we are restoring his talk page so evidence for looking for his future sockpuppets be viewable. Previous discussion also took place at WP:RFCU and WP:AN/I. Plus, right to vanish usually doesn't cover the talk page unless liable/personal information was released on it, and he is only wanting it deleted so his talk page isn't viewed. Please, tell me why you deleted this. Thanks! semper fi — Moe 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cogito_ergo_sumo_and_right_to_vanish.Agathoclea 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Now restored. (aeropagitica) 07:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

10/10

Two things:

1) I wasn't reposting anything. Someone at the Grinnell College page requested an article for 10/10, so I wrote it.

2) I have read stupid cruft articles about many other colleges and universities, none of which were speedy-deleted, and few of which went through even the normal deletion process. I don't see why 10/10 should not be given the same treatment -- at least in the form of a AfD hearing/whatever. Half of the student body attends this party; I think that constitutes notability, or at least merits a hearing.

At the very least I would like a copy of the text I wrote. Could you get that for me? If you give me 15 minutes I am sure I could find several pages from other colleges that are far less notable. Then I want an AfD hearing.

Thank you for writing an accusatory message to me, and thank you for jumping to conclusions about the article. Please contact me through my talk page. ..Zweifel 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)..

It was a repost - the previous version was PRODded on April 29th and deleted on May 4th. Your deleted text is now at User:Zweifel/10/10. Don't repost it and go for an AfD, try a deletion review instead. Justifying the existence of one cruft article on the basis of another isn't a good idea - it's better to demonstrate how it conforms to WP:BIO instead. Lastly, sarcasm doesn't come across too well on-screen; see WP:CIVIL for details of conduct, etiquette and protocol. Regards, (aeropagitica) 07:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a "repost" because I hadn't posted anything before. There is a redlink on the Grinnell College page, and I went and wrote the article up. Perhaps it was my responsibility to check the deletion log (?), but perhaps it was the responsibility of the PROD person to remove the redlink; it ticked me off that you were accusing me of vandalism from the get-go. (I think I'm one of the good ones on this site). I will check out the deletion review thing. Zweifel 07:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Romen Ghosh

Hi Thanks for your message.Actually inadveratantly I had placed the spelling wrongly.That may have resulted in your quetioning the notability.Someone has very kindly corrected it-Raman Ghosh.Thanks fot sutably chiding me.Regards (Vr 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi Thanks for your note.Actualli I had placed teh wrong spelling inadvertantly.It should have been Raman Ghosh.Somebody had corrected it.Thanks for suitably chiding me.Regards.(Vr 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Colossus

Could you keep an eye on the main Colossus page then, it's been vandalised a few times by this band's fans/members. --Aioth 06:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)