User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 22

Re:MY PAGE HAS BEEN DELETED

I apologize for the shouting. By the way we have had the pleasure of meeting, I came to you when I first joined this website and you're my only "friend" or even person that I know on this website. Libertyville 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Sincere apologies from me about forgetting that. I meet so many people here that it can be hard to keep track sometimes. Goodnight to you! (aeropagitica) 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism by 24.151.106.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Hi, you acknowledged my vandalism report from WP:AIV with the comment "IP vandals blocked. LIST CLEAR." but I think you may have overlooked this user. I wasn't sure as this is the first time I've reported someone for vandalism but J.S suggested I send you a message just in case. 172.143.63.173 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes other editors clear the WP:AIV page down before I get the chance to either review or block, usually while I am busy doing the same for another vandal. Perhaps this was one of those times? I can't tell without a diff. My edit summaries are descriptive of the state of the page when I finish rather than my individual actions. You can imagine that AIV is a very busy page and edit conflict often occurs when users add and delete vandal reports. I notice from the block log that the IP editor above was blocked for an hour earlier this evening by Deville. Regards, (aeropagitica) 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

block review of 204.39.48.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Aeropagitica, if you get a chance, could you review my block of this IP. I tripled the last block of one month, but it's a school IP, so I'm not sure that's appropriate. You can reply here. Thanks!--Kchase T 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have looked at the IP address and it is originating from the Detroit area, so I have tagged the IP's Talk page with a box to this effect. As it is a school IP address, I would make the block soft and allow accounts to be created and registered users to log on to edit. We do have schoolchildren who make effective contributions to WP and there is no reason to deny their legitimate use of WP. I have been caught out by this before and changed my blocks upon appeal. I don't have a problem with the escalating duration of the blocks due to vandalism but no one wants to accidentally block legitimate editors. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a hard or soft block (presumably the former blocks usernames as well). Should I just unblock and reblock to clear any autoblocks of legitimate users...or what? Thanks again!--Kchase T 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When you go to 'block user', just leave the 'block anonymous users only' tick box ticked and clear the other two. This should allow registered users to log on and edit and IP editors to create accounts as well. If you didn't do this, unblock the account and then reblock. Mention that this is a softblock in the edit summary in case there are any problems and another admin has to troubleshoot. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption!

Yes, I'd love to be adopted! I have no particular area of interest at the moment, I'm just sort of getting into the whole process. I'm looking to learn and meet some people! Static Universe 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, a good place to go to start meeting other editors would be a Wikiproject such as Esperanza. Check out the programmes that they have running there to start with. Wikiprojects are collaborations of editors with mutual interests in a particular topic. To see all of them, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. You can also look at the list of portals, introductory pages for given topics. There should be at least one entry in each that will match your interests! Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrific, I will do some research this weekend! Static Universe 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another question

and probably not the last. When we indef block vandalism-only accounts, do we hardblock or softblock them? Or does it depend?--Kchase T 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a good question! My take on this is that IP addresses are rarely indef-blocked, although you may find more examples than I have ever done. When I am presented with vandalism-only IP addresses, I look at the block history and extend the block following the trend of the previous admins. I nearly always soft-block schools and shared IP addresses, such as those originating from cable ISPs and ADSL providers and ALWAYS with AOL, given their peculiar IP allocation setup. Wikipedia:Blocking policy has a section for IP addresses:

• "Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks."

• "Before implementing a long-term block on an IP address with a long history of vandalism, please check if it is shared by performing a WHOIS and Reverse DNS lookup query on the IP to determine if it belongs to a school or a proxy server."

They are the guidelines that I use, having made mistakes about this sort of thing in the past, and I haven't run in to trouble with them so far. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it was the first block of vandalism-only, I unblocked and re-blocked soft (for sure), so they can create new accounts and hopefully contribute. Thanks again for your advice aeropagitica. If there's ever anything I can do return the favor, let me know.--Kchase T 21:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I'm glad that I could be of service. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon problem

Once again an anon has added the UK rescue link to the Alaskan Malamute page. The last two times it was from the same IP, but usually it's from various different ones that I think all belong to a block from a UK broadband company. What should I do about this since it tends to come from different (so far, 5) IP addresses?≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! This article is having a little problem with this anonymous IP editor using Tiscali and originating out of Manchester, isn't it? I have added a {{spam}} warning to each of their respective Talk pages, along with the diff showing the evidence of their spamming the inappropriate external link. We at Wikipedia are a tolerant bunch and these warnings are issued in order to educate editors as to the errors of their ways. If they persist after warnings such as these, we increase the warnings up to level four and then report them to WP:AIV for admin attention. An admin then reviews the evidence of their contributions and decides what to do. A short block is usually in order, the length increasing for each subsequent vandalism. You can issue warnings up to level four, as can any editor. Blocking can be done by admins such as myself. Hopefully you won't have to report them to AIV but let me know if you do. You might want to look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a range of warnings that can be issued to editors. The appropriate warnings in this case would be {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}} and {{spam4}}. If the page was being repeatedly spammed several times an hour then there might be a case for requesting semi-protection but I don't think that this is appropriate here. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help and adding the first spam warning. I hope I won't have to report them to AIV too ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Adoption

Hi! Thank you for your welcome,yes I'd love to be adopted. I'm still in the middle of reading all the rules,regulations and how-to's. I'm on EST. in the US but I keep odd hours so I don't think that will be a problem. The areas I'm most knowledgeable in would be history and literary works. I also have a basic understanding of world religions.(but confess I'm probably an agnostic)I havent't searched it yet but civil rights would be an area I'd like to look into. Then also I have an idea for maybe a few articles relating to geology. I'm not an expert but Wiki seems to be lacking in documentation on the frequency of earthquakes on the east coast of the US. I've found some reference materials to address that. I'd like to collaborate or follow someone more knowledgeable. I have a general interest in earth sciences. Thanks again!Deedee19482 08:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol! See need help. Frustrating to have ideas but not mechanic.Deedee19482 08:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 66.162.225.66

I would like to notify you that 66.162.225.66 has vandalized United States v. Microsoft. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 16:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that this is a final warning notice. If they vandalise again then they can be blocked from editing. A note on WP:AIV to this effect would be best, in case I am not around to make the block. I do monitor the page when I am online, as do other admins. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Thanks

If I ever need any help, I'll know who I can turn to for it! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again

I would like to pick you but I wasn't sure if that was an agreement.I didn't hear that it was affirmative after the last message. If I was wrong let me know.Deedee19482 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

I got a little confused with this edit of yours. Was it moved from elsewhere? --Majorly (Talk) 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean IGN then yes, I moved the request from WP:AIV, where the original poster had mistakenly flagged it. I have an abominably slow connection tonight - it is taking about a minute for each edit to get through. The post was deleted from AIV by the time I managed to return there. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rusty Kane

I am requesting to see deleted article Rusty Kane because it has been submitted at AfC and I want to compare the deleted version to the submitted version. Please leave a message at User talk:Natl1. --Natl1 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see the text at User:Natl1/Rusty Kane. I will delete the temporary page tomorrow (Sunday 17th December) at 2000 GMT, unless you have a specific objection. (aeropagitica) 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have viewed the page. You may delete it now. --Natl1 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

I'm starting an article on something called the Modified Mercalli scale. It was thought up in 1900's. Later changed in 1931 to Wood-Neamann scale.It's used still in US to measure earthquake intensity. I can document it off the US Geological Survey. Being that it was done in 1931 and used by seismologists still today would it be copyinfringe to copy verbatim? Need it to explain measurements before Richter scale.Deedee19482 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can't rip off other websites to include their text on Wikipedia, as they need to explicitly release their content to us under the GFDL provisions. You can quote webpages, citing the reference in the conventional way but it is best if you can create your own version of an explanation or description. I don't mean swapping sentences or paragraphs around so that it is slightly different. It is best to gather two-or-more sources and read them thoroughly in order to understand what they are trying to say about a subject before attempting to create your own encyclopedic content. The temptation to lean too heavily on one source can lead to producing something very similar, albeit unintentionally! Look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for examples of referring to particular sources in a prescribed manner. (aeropagitica) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone beat me to the article under Mercalli intensity scale. Not to be sarcastic but I do know what plagiarism is. They even have the scale. But their historical background is way better than mine. But since you have doubts maybe about my writng ability you can see what I came up with before I get rid of it. I don't mind the practice. My original question was about something that was basically public knowledge. Anyhow I was trying to throw the definition out there because I was plotting a rewrite of the Charleston,N.C. earthquake. It's a little sloppy and the information it provided was short. The citations were challenged also. Don't worry I have book sources. By the way I'm 35. Smile!!!I hope I'm not to terrible as an adoptee.Deedee19482 02:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have doubts about your writing ability as I haven't seen any examples as of yet! I am more-than happy to review them if you want to provide a link for me. Believe it or not, people really do try what I wrote about above in the honest belief that they haven't broken copyright. If you want to extensively rewrite an article, why not try mentioning your plan on the article's Talk page, specifying which bits you are thinking of concentrating on? Another editor may well be able to assist you. Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfa Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Thanks! I'm trying to track down the article I got that info from- will link them back in when I find it. Ta. Rob 11:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi aeropagitica,

I see you are part of the adoption process, and have adopted a fair few new users (I am not spying, I just check the new users wanting adoption every few hours to check that people are getting adopted and see that you contact a fair few), but I see you are not using the Template:Adopting or Adopted, and so your name does not appear on the Categories of Wikipedians involved in Adopt-a-User. I wondered if there was a particular reason for that? Cheers Lethaniol 11:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake entirely! I have been so busy with the adoptees and answering their queries along with my own regular duties that I forgot to add the adopted template to my own pages! I will correct that now. Thanks for reminding me, (aeropagitica) 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it ain't in the rules, but it would be cool if you could use Template:Adopting and Template:Adopter on your Userpage. If you really don't want to please can you change [[Category:Wikipedians involved with Adopt-a-user|Areopagitica]] to [[Category:Wikipedians involved with Adopt-a-user|User:Areopagitica]] so its all in order, and add [[[Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user|User:Areopagitica]]] and [[Category:Wikipedians who have adopted in Adopt-a-user|User:Areopagitica]]] on your Userpage This will help us keep track of numbers in each cat and keep them in alpha order. Cheers Lethaniol 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for your kind attention! (aeropagitica) 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - you must hate userboxes - but as long as you are in the categories that is cool with me. Keep up the good work, and pop by WP:ADOPT, especially the Adopter's area - there is a section now for Adopter's ecounting their experiences to help others. Lethaniol 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not hate per se, I just think that I have enough! I will work visits to WP:ADOPT in to my WP shifts - somehow! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About my talk page warning things

I have warnings on my talk page and i dont want them there. So i tried to get rid of them and you put them back saying im not allowed to. Why not? MyNamesLogan

OK, I will address these comments of yours first. The Talk page of your account doesn't belong to you, it belongs to Wikipedia and your contributions to that page are licenced under the GFDL, just like edits to articles. See WP:USERPAGE for details. This means that there is an audit trail in the page history telling everyone who contributed what and when. This audit trail is a versioning process, showing differences between the page after each edit. The upshot is that all of the warnings that you have received will exist as long as the page exists on the Wikipedia servers. They are even available to administrators after the page has been deleted. This is why it is pointless to remove warnings if you are embarrassed or ashamed of them - anyone who wants to can review your contributions and page histories. You can draw a line under your non-encyclopedic contributions and archive the page off. That way, you acknowledge that the community has told you when you have stepped out-of-line and have now resolved to contribute effectively. Editors will be able to see a clear change of character on your part if at some point in the future you decide to run for admin or other position of responsibility. All of your past actions will be weighed in the balance if you come to that position.

Secondly, these comments can be addressed in-turn:

1. You haven't been singled out at all. Many hundreds of editors receive warnings on an hourly basis if they make what amounts to vandalistic or bad-faith edits. Your edits were identified as non-encyclopedic and you were told as such.
2. Vandalism of userpages is treated in the same way as all other vandalism. It can be reverted and the vandal warned. Vandalism happens because of the open nature of Wikipedia. Everyone is invited to contribute but that includes people who don't contribute meaningfully. There is no pre-approval process for edits. The peer review is continuous. Vandalism is usually found quickly and stopped.
3. Your comments about administrators can be seen as an attack. I would discourage you from making these comments in a medium where they are available for instant recall.
4. Your idea of fun is fine but some people disagree about how you expressed it around here. We have guidelines and policies regarding contributions and good conduct. As someone who hasn't yet achieved adulthood, I expect that you experience minor clashes with authority from time to time - parents, school, etc. That is because they have their own rules and guidelines about behaviour, which you only find out about when you transgress. It is the same here.
5. Your use of the word probably indicates an assumption that is not backed-up by evidence. Nor would I expect it to be as it would imply wilful neglect of duties on the part of admins and editors alike.
6. If you feel that you are being bullied and have prima facie evidence of such attacks then please take this to the personal attack intervention noticeboard for review and action. You can present this in the form of diffs, which are available from the history of each page. Examples are the diffs of your pages above.
7. Lastly, please do not use your Userpage to make a point. This is one case where it would be better to blank the page or replace it with information about yourself and your interests on Wikipedia, as this can assist other editors in helping you.

Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Congratulations

Thanks for the congratulations and offer of help! I'm very happy with the outcome and can't wait to see what it looks like to be an admin! Cbrown1023 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, (aeropagitica), for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Stonecutters Club

I know you deleted this a good long time ago, but I just restored it. The reason: I actually merged it more than a year ago, before it was de-merged and AfD'd. The result of the AfD was redirect more so than delete anyway, IMO. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you mean. If you look at this edit history record then you can see that I redirected the article back in August. The content was deleted as it was a replica of the target article with nothing to merge. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You didn't just redirect it [1] The content was merged, then redirected, and then someone reverted the redirect to make it a separate article. It was a duplicate because it had been merged into the other article, since merging, by definition, involves copying and pasting into another article. This is why it is good to be cautious with deletions. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

your deletion of the page on eighth gen. of video games

i just logged in and saw that you deleted my page on the 8th gen. i wanted to thank you for deleting it as speculation rather than crystal balling. i don't mind when my pages are deleted, but i despise it when my pages are deleted for being something they are not. i was terrified that the 8th gen would be deleted as crystal balling and it wasn't. you deleted it as being speculation. your reason was sound and i would have had a hard time refuting it. i will re-right the article, with better sources and when i feel the time is right i will repost it. hopefully in a year or so i will have enough sources for the article to be kept. thanks against for not deleting it for being crystal balling. i probably would have given up on wikipedia if you had. J.L.Main 00:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such a reasoned and balanced response! I am glad that you have decided to continue with the project. Wikipedia needs hard-working editors like yourself! Regards, (aeropagitica) 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

i thought you would like to know that someone has re-created the article. i would recommend that it be marked for speedy deletion and then protected. please don't get me wrong, i do think the article should exist, but i don't think it should be re0created until something is known. J.L.Main 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not according to the history on History of video game consoles (eighth generation). Can you give me a link to follow, please? (aeropagitica) 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, it has already been deleted.J.L.Main 03:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Return of Roulette36

You may recall that back in the spring I contacted you regarding Roulette36's frequent vandalism. You left a warning on his talk page stating that, given his many warnings, he would be blocked if he committed any further vandalism. Fortunately, Roulette36 then ceased vandalizing pages for several months. Unfortunately, he vandalized a page on September 30th, adding "you suck" to a section of the USA PATRIOT Act article (see page history). Shouldn't he now be blocked? --Tjss(Talk) 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If the editor has vandalised after a final warning then they can be blocked, yes. I will look at this now. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:TorchLady71

Thank you for blocking this problem user. I was wondering, however, whether you might be willing to expand the duration of the block? If you look through his/her contribution tree, you'll see that he/she has literally NO non-vandal contributions, and has been persistently creating hoax articles and copyvio images since he/she started editing. I think the risk of recalcitrance greatly outweighs any potential reward here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was equivocating over an indef-block as a vandal-only account but decided to err on the side of a new editor experimenting. Your message has tipped the balance and I think that I will go ahead and change the block to my first thought. (aeropagitica) 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch; it's been a pleasure doing business with you. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Adoption of YK Times

Thanks a bunch for considering me for adoption! I live in a different time zone (MST, -7:00), but I don't think it will be an issue. I am interested in new article creation, disambig. linking, copy editing, and learning in general everything I need to know to become a successful, knowledgable Wikipedian (I have a secret desire to one day be an Admin, probably like most other users). Have a cool yule! -YK Times 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great! Ask your questions on my Talk page and I will do my best to find the answers and deliver them in a style suited to you. Happy editing and I look forward to working with you! (aeropagitica) 05:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really grateful that you adopted me! I want to become really involved with Wikipedia. How do you recommend I go about this? What did you do? Also, could you comment on the design of my userpage? Thx. -YK Times 23:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me! Firstly, you can look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for ideas about becoming involved. There's plenty to do here! You can also join a programme such as Esperanza to talk with and relate to other editors. I become more involved with Wikipedia through editing pages about which I knew something, then following links to other pages, etc. My first welcome message alerted me to the existence of the Talk pages and usernames, which then linked through to the project areas such as XfD and admin-related noticeboards. I will comment on your pages tomorrow, if you like, as it is nearly midnight here in the UK and I have work in the morning. Goodnight! (aeropagitica) 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I know its close to Christmas, so don't hurry to get back to me; enjoy yourself and have fun! Now for my question of the day: how do Wikipedia users communicate and collaborate, other than through talk pages? is there a way? Thanks, and have a cool yule! -YK Times 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry that I didn't comment on your pages yesterday, I had terrible problems with my cable provider and a faulty PC - both took most of yesterday to put right, hence me being up late right now at the end of this admin shift! Yes, Christmas is nearly here and I will probably be away from WP for the first half of next week, family and friends permitting. Talk pages are the main way that editors communicate with each other about WP-related matters. You can also use e-mail, IRC, Instant Messenger or other things such as Skype. Sometimes, if you're both in a large city/university, you can even meet another Wikipedian and discuss things face-to-face! The 'e-mail this user' is available on the left-hand side of each page, in the list below the search window. You can set this up in your preferences, at the top right-hand side. The recipient will see your e-mail address but they won't see yours when sending you a message. Bear this in mind if you don't have a WP-specific e-mail account set up. The IRC channel can be found at irc://chat.freenode.net/wikipedia. Instant Messenger depends upon knowing the handle that your interlocuter is using and those that use Skype tend to say so on their Talk pages. There also communal areas for communication and discussion, such as the Help Desk, Reference Desk, the Village Pump and also admin-related areas such as WP:ANB. See Help:Contents/Communication for more details. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

What have I done again to supposedly break the rules? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agill81 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for vandalizing Wikipedia."

The removal of incorrect information does not constitute the vandalizing of Wikipedia.

"If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires."

The removal of incorrect information from Wikipedia does constitute a useful contribution.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New year Prodego i wish you great wealth and fun time in the coming year! --The Dwarf_King 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Socks

I noticed you blocked User:Jay the evil Mexican. You might want to hit User:White Taurus, User:Brolsma, and the other redlink editor who edited List of songs about sucking poop. All three are among the many User:Nintendude socks (close to 50 at last count... I've given up documenting them all).--Isotope23 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done! (aeropagitica) 17:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

160.9.41.x

I am reversing the indefinite blocks that you are putting in since these are shared IPs belonging to Leeds Metropolitan University. Feel free to reinstate the blocks as soft blocks, but it is my opinions that at the moment, they should not be blocked at all. --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

with the above 160.9.41.x vandal, very much appreciated. Happy holidays and happy new year!--Raja 19:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rayne

I see from the archived AfD discussion in relation to the above article that it has been deleted. As a new user of WP I am somewhat confused as to the process. As you can see from the discussion, I have mentioned twice that Robert Rayne is my grandfather and that we as a family were unaware of the articles existence. Naturally I was surprised to find it as curious to find out who wrote it. I had no response from Soybeans (orignal contrib.) but still felt that extra parts needed adding, (they haven't metioned that he had a son, my dad, at all). However, one contributer said I shouldn't add stuff as I am related whilst someone else said I should have done by which time it is too late and the article has gone. I am not sure that I can start a new article as that violates WP rules as Robert Rayne is family but I would like to add to the original. Is it too late to get it back, and if not would it be likely to gain reinstatement if I started a deletion review? Thanks for your help Admiral007 00:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of the article at the time of deletion as that it was a non-notable biography according to WP:BIO. If you can make a business case for notability against the guidelines set out on the guidance page then I suggest that you place it on Wikipedia:Deletion review to allow the community to determine whether recreation/improvement is appropriate. Please refer to reliable sources to support your argument for recreation, where possible. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)