User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 3

Re: problem IP

Hi (ap) - It's always an iffy business blocking an anon IP because of potential collateral damage - the best you can really do is wing it and hope for the best. But there are a few things worth considering:

Wikipedia:Blocking policy says For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month. In this particular case, a one month block probably isn't out of place by the sound of it. Before you do, though:

• check Blockuser (in the "special pages" in the toolbox). That'll tell you if it's an IP that is used by AOL (and therefore by a lot of users). This page also links with several useful blocking policy pages. Also have a look on the IP's user page and user talk page - that may have extra information.
• Check the block log to see how long the block was for in the past and whether it was unblocked before the end of that time - if it was it might indicate that other, well-intentioned, users share the IP.
• Put the IP's userpage on your watchlist to see if there are any complaints about the block (make sure you can be reached from WP by email, too). If there are genuine users sharing the IP, you may need to unblock early. You may get a little abuse from genuine users but it is almost always very short-term since all but the really bull-headed will understand why the block was there.

hope that's some use - Grutness...wha? 23:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Work of Byron Katie

Please don't create identical articles with similar names! Use the '#REDIRECT article 2' code instead! More importantly, please read the welcome salutation below, especially the parts about creating good articles for Wikipedia. The Byron Katie articles are a real mess at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. My Byron Katie page got taken off anyway and I have created another one, which I think looks better and is more useful. Thanks. Lmbiskup 23:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)lmbiskup

Re: Talk:Post-pub

I think you accidentally skipped over the talk page when you deleted the article. I'd zap it myself, but I originally started the AfD so I don't want to appear to gloat by taking out the page. Joyous | Talk 15:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I wouldn't have seen it as gloating if you'd deleted it!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mikeabundo Request for Comment

I've been having a problem with User:Mikeabundo, who insists on inserting a link from his own website in the Numa Numa article. The link is to a video that is of such poor visual quality that it's hard to tell they participants are even doing Cosplay, and the sound is so bad you can't tell what song it is (both these are important to the article itself).

Mikeabundo has been reverting on sight without any explanation, despite numerous attempts to discuss the issuse. It's worth noting that a vanity article the user wrote about himself (Mike Abundo) was deleted, and that there is some controversy on the Talk:Cosplay page about his repeated attempts to promote his own website in the article, which is what he appears to be doing with this video as well.

There is currently a Request for Comment in place on this very issue, but it has just now reached the 2 person threshold (although one other person has commented on the talk page, we seem to be the only 2 who edit the Numa Numa article). However, it's a convenient place to see all the reverts. Most recently, User:KI has become involved, placing a warning template on Mikeabundo's page and reverting his addition of this link, but to no avail.

I'm an admin myself, but don't think it's a good idea to block Mikeabundo myself, since I'm involved in the disputed page. Still, he has been warned repeatedly about his behaviour, and continues to revert without explanation or discussion. He needs to be blocked for at least 24 hours. Can you help?

Thanks, Exploding Boy 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I will have a look at this RfC this evening & let you know my thoughts. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, only I couldn't access WP yesterday evening. I have now had a chance to look over the evidence-as-presented in the various Talk pages referred to in the RfC. I am happy to endorse the sequence of events as described, as it appears to be an accurate summation of the concerned parties' behaviours. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilliver

Would you please also delete Gillivery as per nomination? Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The article has been deleted. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the article, AP, the redirect. You deleted "Gilliver", now please delete Gillivery. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was showing as deleted on my screen. Have now refreshed and confirmed that this has been deleted. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this comment - it isn't very obvious where the right place is; I would have used "the article's discussion page" as suggested in the deletion log, but since it's been deleted, that was rather difficult! Email me if you can point me better.) Although I, J. P. Gilliver (after whom the two terms were named), entered the article(s), I was only entering a description of how the terms are actually used. (It wasn't an attack on me!) I did my best to write it objectively, which is why maybe someone thought it was a personal attack on me. If you do a Google Groups advanced search (I suggest for Gillivery/gillivery rather than gilliver), you'll find it used back to 1998, with an early user being Penny Mayes. (Some of the early users did put an upper case G.) 20.133.0.14 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)John dot (guess) at baesystems.com

Hello, John Gilliver! Don't forget to sign in when you are contributing to other users' Talk pages, it makes it much easier to talk back. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A good place for this article to appear might be [wiktionary:Main_Page Wiktionary]. Before this can be done, the term should be entered in to something like Urbandictionary or another online dictionary of slang and/or Internet idioms, with the appropriate citations. Asking me to search for instances of usage on Google Groups shows the basic deficiency of the article - a researcher should be able to have this information at their fingertips if the article is well-constructed. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: No Personal Attacks: Paul Seal

{Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Casper2k3 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add jyslef to Wiki, I'm well known in Victoria, BC, Canada. Can I do that? VicHockeyFan 07:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO, WP:AUTO & WP:VANITY with regard to creating autobiographical articles on Wikipedia. Use these to guide your decision to create an article about yourself. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Chinese Woman

The article was deleted without me knowing and there were not many votes. In any case why don't you delete the Persian Woman article then? Furthermore there was no good reason to delete it. Zachorious 09:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of vandalizing? You are being really unfair here. There have been no votes, and another very similar article still remains active. Zachorious 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The recreation of previously-deleted material is considered an act of vandalism. The Iranian Woman article appears to be of a high standard. If you can write a similar article on Chinese women to the same standard then there is no reason why it should not stand alongside. Use a personal Sandbox for development before publishing. The stub as it stood at deletion was not sufficient to justify an article. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all I was never even informed. I think that is a bit unfair considering I made the article and argued to keep it. When you deleted it there was even no message sent to me. If after all that you consider that vandalism then that's pretty messed. Plus I know so many incomple articles with not much more than stubs. Why don't you delete all incomplete articles in this case? Zachorious 04:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to my above answer. Create a Sandbox page for yourself and develop the article into something more than a tautology before publication.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Socities

This article has now been deleted. It could have been tagged as a speedy delete if it was created by a vandal logged in to your account. Make sure that you change your password and keep it carefully guarded in future.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think my listing in the request for deletion page looked right, but I couldn't find any other pages for the purpose.

hobbie 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Specky is stupid

You shouldn't really post attacks in the deletion reason. Good work, though! Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post it deliberately, the field was automatically filled as the deletion page came up. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: No hats in m'buildin

The page called No hats in m'buildin is not vandalism. It is a real quote, and if users want to seek its origins, it should have a page for them to do that. Just because YOU'VE never heard it before doesn't mean it isn't real. That's very ignorant of you.

And no, just because its origins are IN a school, that doesn't mean that it is something "my friends and I thought of in school one day." THIS IS A REAL QUOTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared (talk • contribs)

Origins : "No hats in m'buildin" was said during the orientation for Coral Reef's "Ready for the Reef" program. Ms. Leal proceeded in telling the students about the school's dress code. She finished her speech by saying, "And boys, if you're wearing a hat, take it off, because there are "no hats in m'buildin."

If you believe this to be something more than something made up in school one day, then please chase down the origin of the quote, providing a citation and reference for same, and place it in Wikiquote, where it would belong. The phrase and the article are unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: National Spooning Day Deletion

I don't think this page should be deleted: I created it after I saw people on the Cornell University Campus selling shirts for the day along with a picture in the Cornell Daily Sun (Which I can scan if you'd like proof). Even if it is just a Cornell tradition, or if they made it up, I see no reason why other made up holidays are somehow more valid. Certainly, come April 22nd, there will be a couple of hundred people (depending on how many shirts those people have sold) celebrating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhenck (talk • contribs)

"...a couple of hundred people... celebrating it." Please read Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. An unofficial student amusement at Cornell falls below the criteria for notability for public holiday articles on Wikipedia. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand and defer to your judgment. I do want to ask at what point it becomes valid for it to be considered an actual "unofficial" holiday? Steak and Blowjob day is celebrated by nobody that I know, and was itself only started 4 years ago, yet features a full article in the encyclopedia.Cjhenck 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Cjhenck

In addition to WP:NFT, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Reliable sources should be cited and referenced in as many as possible, if not all, encyclopædic articles. Up to two hundred people at Cornell one year, "depending on how many shirts those people have sold", is not notable. Reading the Steak and Blowjob Day article, I see that it has spread beyond its initial chauvanistic, sarcastic response to Valentine's Day to become an Internet meme. It is the meme that is the notable point of the article and its origin is recorded but not the subject of said article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Middlestown

Sorry , was just proving something about WIKI to my Uncle , No harm meant by it :( Wont happen again sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey12344 (talk • contribs)

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You may find this interesting

I thought that I would bring to your attention that an article which was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project (2006)) seems to have been put back up and is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Long Island Project. The new article never fixed the flaws for which it was deleted for initially. Shouldn't this be speedied? I also brought this up to User talk:Stifle since he was also involved in the previous AfD debate. --Strothra 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I wasn't previously aware of this. {{db-repost}} would be an appropriate tag if the article is an identical repost of previously-deleted material. I shall have to look in the logs to be sure. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.31.243 (talk • contribs)

Karmacoda

Hi! Trying to get this off of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_14#Karmacoda and can't figure out how. Originally the user wanted to argue as copyright violation, but that didn't fly--the original author has approved the text. Then he claimed non-notable. It certainly does meet notability standards.

I see how active you are and your help would be appreciated getting this rushed so I can notify the complaintant via email.

Thank you. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I don't quite understand what you mean. The AfD process has been undertaken and the result was keep. This result is logged on the AfD page for future reference. When I close debates in this manner, I remove the link to the debate from the main article page, with a note in the edit history regarding the successful keep vote. I then add a link to the debate to the article's Talk page, for reference. I have done this for you. Once articles appear on an AfD page the link stays on. The debates can be closed early if there has been a mistake in the nomination. The closing admin makes a note of this in their stated reasons for closure. I hope that this has been of some help. Please let me know if you need further clarification. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Loloaqici82qb4ip

Hello why was Loloaqici82qb4ip removed?

It is an information page not a test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N0rbie (talk • contribs)

Firstly, sign your messages with four tildes - ~ -, so that I don't have to hunt around for the poster's identity! Secondly, the content of the article was "Short hand slang for "Ello ello, a queue I see, I hate to queue before I pee!". The article title is highly unlikely to be searched on as it isn't an acronym of the phrase in question. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, so even if this is a notable phrase, it would be better-placed in Wiktionary, with the appropriate references and usage citations as proof. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks Norbie 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Retail therapy

I have rewritten this article adding references to what is there. While there is still much work to be done, it is a start. Anyway, I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 09:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The article looks much-improved upon the initial submission. I think that it is now a worthwhile stub that can be built on in order to make a useful reference for a researcher of popular culture. Well done on your efforts. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Cities

Hi, sorry about that, I read a procedure page that said it was ok to close the debate if a resolution was apparent, and since I was the only dissenting voice I thought that I would do it, and that I had done it correctly. Once again, sorry. --Si42 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move request

could you move the page Harry S. Truman High School to Harry S Truman High School. It may seem small but people from my school couldn't find the page because I made the mistake of tying a period after the S. I created the other page before I was fully aware of the wikipedian policy. Could you help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledlaxman24 (talk • contribs)

Hello! Firstly, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes - ~ -, that way, I don't have to hunt around for your contact details. Secondly, I'm more than happy to move the page, but I see that page under the new name has already been created. I will have to delete this in order to move the old page. There's no need to create a page with the new name for a page move, the request above is sufficient, so bear this in mind for the future. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Seek bedding (was Dear Wikipedia National Socialist)

You removed my article on the bases it was defining a term.So, if you can't define terms, shouldn't the article on terrorism be removed, what about cocking, jogging...etc.. My article wasn't a test, I put hard work and effort into, it and then fact that you removed it is simply offensive and ignorant. After publication my article was indeed vandalized, but instead of doing something about this you decided to remove the whole article. Explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matiandos (talk • contribs) .

Firstly, be civil. Your comments above are derogatory and don't help you to put a case in any way. Secondly, sign your comments with four tildes - ~ - in order for the recepient to respond without having to hunt around for your identity. "The term is currently not used in mainstream colloquial International English, and no regional variants of it exist. The use is mainly limited to forms of communications over the Internet, mainly IRC or Internet relay chat." In this case, the definition of the phrase specifically excludes notable status as, if it is used at all, it appears rarely within one specific mode of communication. If a phrase is notable then it will be referenced in places such as Wiktionary or dictionaries of Internet/urban slang and perhaps also in print. In this case, notablility would be conferred through repeated mentions in a veriety of media, demonstrating adoption in to popular culture. The articles that you propose for deletion are not dictionary definitions, they are discussions of sociological and popular phenomena. Remember, articles are submitted to Wikipedia in the knowledge that they can be edited and/or deleted without prejudice by others. Articles are not owned by any one person, even the author. The GFDL licence governs this. The only way to ensure that no one edits your material is to publish on to your own webspace. If your article is a work-in-progress, please create a Sandbox page in order to develop it to a point at which you believe that it cannot be further improved before publication. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jason Rogers

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for telling me that, dint know. Aseem2108 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)asee,