User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 5

3 BC as -2

"Why would 3 BC be referred to as -2? I can't say that I have ever been taught this way of Calendrical reference, or heard or read about such things in documentaries or academic publications. The disambiguation page appears to be erronous.  (aeropagitica)  (talk) " 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's referred to that way on the common era year zero calendar. 1 BC is 0, 2 BC is -1, 3 BC is -2 etc. See http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm Hoof38 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, the Astronomical year zero reference. I didn't make this connection with 3 BC. Do you think that it could be made explicit on the disambiguation page?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Praise from the masses

I'm a recently started editor with an eye towards vandal and idiot stopping, and I'd like to tell you that you are probably the best role model on right now. Any advice for me? I know how to add the speedy delete tags, but anything else? Niki Whimbrel 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Many thanks for your praise regarding my new pages patrolling efforts, it is largely a thankless task. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in a janitorial capacity, I suggest that you become familiar with the policies and guidelines that govern article standards and user behaviour on Wikipedia. Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines has links to many useful pages. Project pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are also good places to visit and read the opinions of other editors. Often the more experienced editors will back up their opinions by referring to appropriate policy and guideline pages when recommending a course of action. The best advice might be to read as much as you can and ask questions when you are not sure about an opinion or an action. Best wishes for the future!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much! May I call upon you if I make mistakes or need help, then, please? Niki Whimbrel 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you can. Don't forget that other admins are also able to assist you as well & you can ask questions at the village pump help desk. Time zones being what they are, I may be asleep or working or both when you ask a question!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving Baptism of Christ

Hello! I have redirected your new article to Baptism of Jesus, which is already established. This will save replication of information for editors and be useful for researchers searching on either term.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem that you moved it. I had just started creating it because I had not found it here yet. Next time I'll do a more thorough search. Thanks! BGFMSM 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cdhowlett

I know her, and I know she did not mean to vandalize. I've replaced your vandalism notice with the {{nn-notice}} tag. Hope you understand! - CobaltBlueTony 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Other People's Problems

You tagged this album as non-notable. I've added some sources and chart positions of singles from it (two of which went Top 40 in the UK), but I'm not sure, as this album itself hasn't charted (it was only released a couple of days ago), but the singles off it have, whether it also counts as notable. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The tag isn't 'non-notable' per se, it is a request to explain the notability of the subject of the article. It wasn't clear how an album released only days ago at the time of writing could be notable, but your answer above has gone some way to providing an answer to the question. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maple Shorts

Where do you get the idea that it was a test it was the very begining of a new article! Jamhaw 18:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Can you expand it at all? Why is it notable? It was deleted because the article failed to answer this question. I have categorised the article and cleaned up the spelling errors.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be eSY to expand you may notice that I just remade the article and it is even bigger and it would be far larger if I had not had to remake it and if other people start writing more to it it is even bigger it only existed for approximtley ten seconds before you deleted it so give me a break. As for notability it's more notable than some to my knowedge it's the only time shorts made by kids have been on puplic televison. Is there even a limit to how many articles wikipedia can have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)

The have been no further edits to this article since I tagged it for expansion and notability. Your defence of the article by generalising on weaker articles doesn't demonstrate the notability of the subject. Do you have a reference for your belief that this is the first time short films made by children have been shown on Canadian public television? If you do then this can be the claim for notability. This is the basic question that every editor should be able to answer when starting an article on Wikipedia - why is this subject notable? Every article should originate from this answer.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been more I wrote them you deleted the article and the new article is bigger. Also IS THERE ANY LIMIT TO ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA. If there is then we should delete a large number of articles possibly including this one it is more notable than quite a few if you have problems with small articles I would suggest looking at StarCraft,StarWars, and other things which have massive amounts of articles on things that don't appear in the movies books or anything but fan magizines but they deserve an article because they exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)

The edit history on the article indicates otherwise. You can see what the theorectical limits to Wikipedia are on this page. I'm only asking one question, why is this programme notable? Pointing to other articles rather than answering this question is a logical fallacy. I am not going to hound you on this matter as I have no axe to grind and am no pedant.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that notable when compared to world war 2 but I think it is notable enough to get an article. Jamhaw 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

OK, why? Notability isn't relative - the subject of an article is, or should be, notable in-and-of itself. I'm not telling you off about this. Do me a favour - if you can't answer "Because..." to the why question then please let us close this correspondance as it is getting nowhere.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sabatage

I'm getting frustrated that I have to spend time patrolling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_capture to keep competitors from removing data and sabataging the site. One Very nice Wikipedian was helpful in noticing that someone intentionally changed a letter in our weblink to make it fail. I'm almost amused by the use of anonymous users who then put their website in a few edits later. I guess theoretically someone might be a fan of theirs and be sabataging competitors for them, but it seems unlikely. Thankfully there are anonymous or random wikipedians that are more alert than I am, because I wouldn't have noticed that for months. Tmcsheery 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

-2 revisited

User:Hoof38 has been banned as a sock puppet of the late, unlamented, User:Science3456. Would you have any objection to deleting the article at −2, as you're the only legitimate editor of it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this. Looking at your comment on the user's Talk page, I now think that I should have gone with my first impression and removed the disambiguation page. Thanks for letting me know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Can you check WP:AIV and block this guy I have listed? He's causing me holy hell. --Zpb52 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it looks like RasputinAXP beat you to it by about a minute and gave him a 29-day-longer block for racism. Did your 24-hour block override the 1-month block? If so, can you reinstate it? Thanks. Sorry to be a bother. --Zpb52 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fine now. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, pal! --Zpb52 07:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nice

I commend your speed in finding and deleting my articles. Thanks for the help. I will avoid making the same mistakes in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesardude (talk • contribs)

New pages are displayed on the new pages log and are easy to read. It is a single article rather than multiples.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  00:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[Edited to remove my real name Caesardude 00:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)]

Paolo Nutini

Hello, I made a page on Paolo Nutini, which you, promptly, removed. Would you do a small amount of research so that you can decide if Paolo Nutini is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I think that he probably is. Note that his single 'These Streets' was just made available free on iTunes UK (not sure about the iTunes USA). This means that a large number of people will know who he is (and want to contribute to his article of Wikipedia). He, also, has an album coming out next month. Thank you for taking the time to reconsider you action. Wright123 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read WP:Music at all? Can you state that this chap has fulfilled one or more of the guidelines on the page and back it up with evidence? If you can, then place the evidence on the page so that I and all other editors/researchers can see it. Thinking that someone probably is is not the same as knowing, with knowledge based upon evidence. Has this chap had x hundred-thousand downloads on iTunes UK? Can you show this? This may be grounds for notability. Really, all I am asking are questions that every editor and author of an article should ask themselves:

• I know about x
• I know about x because of y
• There is no article about x on Wikipedia
• I will read the guidelines or policy relating to x and edit my article copy accordingly.
• I will write article z about x using y as evidence.
• Article z now satisfies the guidelines or policy and is an evidence-based record of a notable subject.

Just because a subject fails the criteria for notability now, it doesn't mean that this subject is banned for all time. Perhaps next month the album will go gold and the month after this chap will start a national or international tour, thus becoming notable. I don't delete out of spite, my actions as an administrator are governed by policy and guidelines-as-written.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about guidelines, I think it would be better if you did not use the following message when you revert, what you think is, vandalism:

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked,. I saw this as rude and not needed. Making this page was not an experiment; I was trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Note this recommendation about cleaning up ‘vandalism’: Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Avoid being rude [1] I understand that you did not do it "out of spite" but I did see this as rude, especially as you did not talk to me about your action on my talk page.

The fact that he has a song available for free download means that he is notable. You cannot get your song available free on such a store as iTunes, unless you are notable. Obviously, it would be nice to know how many downloads there has been but I don’t have this information (and probably cannot get this information). Also, as it is available for free download, it does not come up in their download chart. I could only presume that many people have downloaded it.

As for your criteria for notability with regards to touring. He is doing a national UK tour and is has a concert in America (i.e. it could be said that he is doing an international tour).

I looked at WP:Music, he fulfils the following requirements:

• Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. – As stated above (the exact dates are available on his website [2] and myspace page [3].
• Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. – He is very prominent in his hometown.

I await your response. Thank you. Wright123 20:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the deletion message is a standard template, {{test1}} used by hundreds of editors on thousands of talk pages. I am civil when interacting with other Wikipedians, even those who do nothing other than vandalise the good works of others. If you have information that satisfies the criteria on WP:Music, please add it to the article page, now restored. Other people can then express their views on the subject, if they so desire.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wright123 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use debate regarding television screencaps

Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trigger Happy

Dear Administrator: I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are. The world owes you. I owe You.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vague generalisations are worthless in debate. If you wish to discuss a specific action of mine then please do so. If not, then please do not spam my Talk page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments removed

I have reverted your last two edits to Image talk:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Could you explain what was the rationale for placing them there in the first place? __meco 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I deleted KYLE MUENZNER and Sarah plotkin, both attack pages posted by a vandal, Szego and Tstst respectively. I noticed that their Talk links redirected towards this image but I thought that I had moved away from this page in order to leave the vandalism warnings. I will now attempt to warn the vandals again. Thank you for pointing this out to me.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bradley baruch stone

You just speedied this as CSD A7. I was in the process of prodding it as nn as it did make a claim to notability with a newspaper article devoted to the article's subject and unique actions taken by him. What is your standard for "assertion of the importance or significance of the subject"? I'm not requesting undeletion mind you, I'm just wondering what your criteria are. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I use WP:BIO as a guideline and ask myself the question What evidence is provided in this article to demonstrate the notability of this person?" A citation in a newspaper article or other Journal of Record; a television news item; published works in any media. As long as there is something substantial to support a claim of notability rather than just stating that person x exists or existed. The article has been recreated and I have asked the author to look at WP:BIO as a guide to making a claim as to notability for their subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to feel out and understand the non-policy based boundaries surrounding inclusion and deletion better before becoming an admin. Since all of the inclusion guidelines are subjective guidelines, I'm trying to get a good sense of what the prevailing views on them seem to be. It's also a WP:AUTO violation, btw, and ghits aren't going to serve the guy well. On another subject, is the "I don't like CURRENTDAY." userbox a reference to a certain manic-depressive robot, or am I just reading too much into your userboxes?—WAvegetarian•(talk) 20:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. To get a feel for what is and isn't acceptable, you should also look at the AfD pages, if you don't already, and see how other editors and administrators express their opinions. Editors have their own standards for inclusion or deletion in addition to the policies and guidelines set out elsewhere. I always find that justifying an action based upon a reading of such policies and guidelines is the best course of action when my decisions are questioned, as you can see from my Talk page and archives. That way, debates don't descend in to the personal realm and it is that much easier to remain civil. In answer to your other question, I don't know if Marvin was in the mind of the creator of that particular userbox, but there is a resonance with his attitudes and that statement, I agree!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to be moderately active on AFD, but have spent much of my time recently doing NP patrol and the welcoming and policy explanations surrounding that, so I haven't seen much of the recent "case precedent" if you will regarding interpretations of it. I spent a half hour or so looking through it a couple days ago, in fact I even closed one, but thank you for the suggestion anyway. I intend to get more active there again and take a break from NPP for a little while. With AFD things are less frenetic and there's always something interesting to read more than "Jason sucks!", "Brad is the coolest!", or "We just love to rock out!" —WAvegetarian•(talk) 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is largely a thankless task and we are all volunteers too! I do have an idea that entropy increases over time, so that Wikipedia will move from a state of order towards a state of disorder the longer that it exists. Anything that we can do to stem the flow of disorderly contributions will be valued by someone. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahic

I recreated the article under the belief that it has value for inclusion in Wikipedia. As you deleted it I was expanding it somewhat. It's brand new, which explains its single-editor status as of yet. Ben Tibbetts 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has suggested that it be merged with List of Internet slang. I think that this would be a suitable compromise between losing the definition and keeping it and thousands of others as discrete articles. The age of the article and the number of editors is not in consideration in terms of Wikipedia not being a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. Sounds good, thank you. Ben Tibbetts 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Call of Cthulhu (film)

Why would this article be deleted?Hodgson 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article hasn't been deleted. The notice says that the article hasn't established the notability of its subject. All I understand from the article is that a silent film exists and was created in 2005. I would like to know if it is notable in any way - film festival awards, distributed by a major studio, technical innovations used in its creation, etc. You should already have the evidence of such notability to hand if you have created the article - it would be the reason for which the article was originally created. I would like to know what it is. On a side note, I might also be interested in watching the film on a future date.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed the {{notability}} tag without addressing the reason for its placement. Could you please do so? I would like to know more about this film through the article. Please don't remove the tag without adding something to the article, as this is a breach of etiquette. I am sure that you already know why the film is notable, can you share the reasons, please?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Chanel Adams

In reference to "Chanel Adams": That was a joke my friends made about me. It was not a personal attack, just a friendly joke. I personally was okie with it and I apologize if it was inappropriate. Typical 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that Wikipedia has an audience of millions, so what seems funny to you and your circle of friends may appear to be an attack on your character to a third party such as myself. It is better to keep personal jokes such as this away from public fora such as Wikipedia in order to avoid misinterpretation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)