User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 27

Help
Hi, I was editing my userpage and I noticed that it looks a bit screwy on different sized browsers. Is there a way to fix this? Maybe something with the table code? Thanks, Rougeblossom 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also one more quick question, how are talk pages archived? Thanks again, Rougeblossom 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the material that I can find about Wikicode doesn't mention the differences between different browsers - Help:Editing, so I have a feeling that it is to do with your monobook CSS and the browser upon which you view and edit Wikipdia. I use Firefox on a PC and my userpage looks best when viewed through that.  Internet Explorer makes the curved boxes on my page harden out, which doesn't look so nice.  I haven't found an issue where something in my CSS fails to work when using IE over Firefox, so the differences may be more aesthetic rather than functional.  I will do some more research for you.  If you find something then please let me know!


 * Archiving your Talk page is easy. It is simply a case of creating a sub-page on your Talk page and cutting-and-pasting the contents of your Talk page on to that.  The way  that I do mine is:
 * Open my Talk page for editing.
 * Type - 
 * Cut the Talk comments that I want to archive.
 * Save the Talk page with an edit summary of 'archiving user Talk page'.
 * Go to the new red link and open it for editing.
 * Paste the contents of my Clipboard in to the new page.
 * Add the template Talkarchive to the page.
 * Use 'archived user Talk page' as the edit summary.
 * Save the page.

The new link to your Talk Archive will appear on your Talk page as the red link will have turned blue. I archive mine when it gets to #32k in size. Other people have different reigemes - choose what you feel is best. Other people also use bots for archiving their Talk pages, specifically Werdnabot. See User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto for details of that. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia
Give me a good reason why Conservapedia is kept being deleted and I will stop. If you delete me I promise I will come back with revenge and a Wikipedia authority. -I&#39;m Working for Him 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons for deletion are contained within the above-linked discussion. If you have a solid business case for its restoration and improvement then please take it to a deletion review rather than recreating the article.  Incidentally, it is preferred that editors assume good faith on the part of other editors and the issuing of threats runs counter to the spirit of collaborative effort and good faith.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for speedy deletion on Bush is Lord
Thank you so much for trying to ruin my hard work. You know what I don't understand about you administrators? It's that you guys always condemn added vandalism as "ruining others' hard work" even when it doesn't change what is actually there, yet you go around condemning pages for "speedy deletion" just because it doesn't suit your "eligibility criteria". What a hypocritical contradiction! Anyway, the article should be considered notable because it relates to George W. Bush, a political figure that is already established to be relevant. Also, I'm not promoting the ideas of an organization, but rather presenting them and even being critical of them. Perhaps you are thinking more along the lines of an NPOV argument? --Blooper Glooper 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The website is non-notable according to WP:WEB; it also has a very low Alex rank. Politics doesn't come in to deciding whether an article is notable or otherwise - it is simply a case of measuring against the relevant criteria. Regards, (aeropagitica) 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I be off my last warning?
You have taught me that the sand box is for testing. I didn't know that. And I didn't see my messeges till my last warning can you please take me off my last warning? Daniellerbenesch 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave it there - it's in the page history anyway. Please make sure that you become familiar with the guidelines for editing on Wikipedia.  You can look at the help pages and the adopt-a-new-user programme for more details. (aeropagitica) 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA talk pages
Hi there, I notice you add the edit stats to RfA talk pages regularly – just letting you know there's a useful template that can do it all neatly: Template:RfA talk. You can use it like USERNAME -- Majorly  (o rly?) 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

re: AMK Hub
AMK hub is a MAJOR building in Ang Mo Kio! It exists. Anyway someone else will create the article if it's not me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icy bot (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * You need to assert its notability using reliable sources, then there will be no need for deletion. Existence is not sufficient grounds for the assertion of notability. (aeropagitica) 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will get a photo asap. Icy bot 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A photograph is not sufficient to assert notability! Please read the link provided above before you attempt to recreate this. (aeropagitica) 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Is there any way to link the petition to restore our right to vote in the wikimedia foundation on my user page? --Umalee 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you provide me with a link to what you are talking about, please? (aeropagitica) 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thadman/Give_Back_Our_Membership --Umalee 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tim Mchugh
Sorry, was learning the site. thks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ace man (talk • contribs)

Yo yo Aero!
You've adopted that many users? Wow, congratulations! ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bangover
Sorry. Seriously. There wasn't a page, and I just wanted to fill space. Sorry. Ootmc 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: I Can't Get Out
How is that other one vandalizing? I mean, yeah the bangover one was, but how is this one wrong? It's a song. Serious. Ootmc 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand about contributing effectively to Wikipedia then I suggest that you read the articles linked from the help pages, specifically relating to writing and editing good articles. I would also like to draw your attention to this message on your User page - editors do not own their contributions and should have no emotional attachment to them.  If you aren't prepared to see your contributions edited mercilessly or even deleted as per the policies and guidelines then you should take your material to a website or blog that you can control.  We release all of our edits to the community under the GFDL licence.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again. I'm sorry. Forgive me, I'm new here. You guys have deleted all my pages and I was just freaking out. My sincerest apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootmc (talk • contribs)

Right choice?
Hi aeropagitica. You said to come here if I have any questions about adminship, and I've got one about a user I just blocked,. I was responding to this RFPP request, and it seemed he was the main cause of disruption to the article that was wanted semiprotected. While his contribs aren't blatant vandalism, they amount to repeated misinformation addition and unexplained content removal, and he was warned and reverted multiple times. By random coincidence, you blocked him only a month ago - for vandalizing the same set of articles, no less. Was blocking him the right choice? Picaroon 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your question! Looking at the contributions of this particular IP editor, I think that this, this, this and this all amount to vandal edits to the database in a twenty-four hour period.  To me, this would be enough for a final warning on their Talk page and as they have been warned and blocked before, I would then push it to a block as they should have learned their lesson the first time around.  The twenty-four hour duration of the block is quite adequate too.  You made it a soft block in case the IP address is shared by multiple editors?  You can check this by using the tools available at http://centralops.net.  In summary, I don't consider your decision to be out of line when considering the evidence available in the editors' contribution history.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple editors never occurred to me - I didn't think much about the boxes, and the blocking help page wasn't of much use. Of "Block anonymous users only [ ], Prevent account creation [ ], Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from [ ]," which should I have checked? Picaroon 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the choices can be confusing, can't they? this link may give you some advice. When I make a choice to block an IP editor, I tend to choose 'block anonymous users only', in order to allow registered editors originating from the same IP address to pass through the block unaffected.  I choose the other two options and not the first when I block persistent vandal-only accounts.  I am sparing on the 'last IP address' in case the account originates from a school.  You can very quickly tell which edits are coming from schoolboys or girls, as they tend to follow the same patterns, both in contributions and time frames.  To summarise, choose option 1 only for IP vandals; choose options two and three only for persistent non-school vandal-only accounts and choose option two only for logged-in schoolboy vandals.


 * I must stress that these are my personal guidelines and I wouldn't expect any other editor to do as I do without question. I make mistakes like anyone else and I am happy to receive constructive criticism to this effect.  If you find that my guidelines are inaccurate then please do let me know so that I can change them! Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That certainly makes sense - thanks for the info. I'll keep the centralops link in mind. Picaroon 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

 * ...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

YourSportsFan
Hey, I wonder if you could take a look at YourSportsFan? He keeps deleting tags on this (I believe) obviously commercial link. I'm concerned the tag may not last long enough to get deleted. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette 07:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! You're fast. Philippe Beaudette 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do try whenever I am able! This wasn't a notable website and there may be a case for a WP:3RR warning to be issued if the article is recreated, pertaining to the text removed and reinstated. Regards, (aeropagitica) 07:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hi I'm new here on Wikipedia and not too sure how to report someone who broke the 3RR rule as User:SUIT did on the page Action figure and he is possibly a sock or meat puppet of User:Power level (Dragon Ball) He called me a dick and linked it to a page so he wouldn't get in trouble. Any help appreciated. User:OJHomer
 * I already explained it on User talk:23skidoo. I ain't gonna say it again.-- SU IT  -n-tie 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem very odd that such a new user would know about sockpuppets and the three-revert rule but it is not totally unheard of. The 3RR exists to prevent the reinstatement of material that is deemed to be non-encyclopedic or vandalism in nature no more than three times in any 24-hour period.  Reversion of this inclusion of material does not break the 3RR.  The proper procedure is to initiate a discussion about the worth of the material on the article Talk page and for consensus to be achieved.  Name-calling and protesting/reporting does not display a good Wikipedia editing attitude and neither to the edit summary comments that OJHomer has left either.  Before you take this to WP:AN/I or other noticeboard, I suggest that you re-read the 3RR guidelines and also read WP:CIVIL too.  If you are a new editor then you would do well to read the help pages and the guides to contributing effectively to Wikipedia.  Regards, (aeropagitica) 08:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Fanon
Not to be rude, but why was it speedily deleted? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything', and should have this content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan Dude (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Your mistake is making an assumption about *everything*. We have policies and guidelines here to assist in determining what is and isn't notable.  This stops the database filling up with millions of pages about IP addresses, websites, roads, diners, schools, small businesses, etc.  Articles that fall below the radar horizon for their particular policy or guideline are deleted, either speedily or after a review.  Your article was reviewed and then deleted originally - a repost counts as a speedy criteria.  Please refer to the welcome salutation below this reply in order to understand about contributing effectively to Wikipedia. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

recreation of artical on eighth generation of videogame consoles
on my user page i've posted a check list. i state that i will be reposting the artical once i fullfil it. i was hoping that you would agree to support the artical if i could get it to meet those criteria.J.L.Main 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

vroman effect
hi, i was the one who edited the "vroman effect" page and when i found that a page did not exist on the topic while studying for a biomaterials exam, decided that i could contribute. the article is in my own words as i understand the material based on lecture slides from my course. the reference at the bottom of the page is to an external article related to the vroman effect so that someone might check all my facts. S.riccardelli 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)S.riccardelli


 * Your own words are fine - someone else's paid-for and copyrighted words are not! Please bear this in mind when contributing material to Wikipedia in future.  Your article also requires sources and categories, too.  Have a look at the welcome salutation below and the help pages in order to see what you have to do in order to improve your article. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Fanon
Whats wrong?! A Wikia Featured Wiki with over 7,000 articles Isn't Notable?! Not to be rude or disrespectful, but I'm getting Irritated!  Ethan Dude -  Leave me Hate Mail 


 * It's always better to provide a context for your comments, as we generally deal with many editors and articles in a Wikipedia session and can't necessarily remember all of them from day-to-day. The article was deleted because it was a db-repost of a previously-deleted article which had been discussed by the community, whose consensus was to delete it as non-notable according to WP:WEB.  Your irritation is unfounded.  If you have a reasonable business case for resurrecting an improving this article then I suggest that you take it to a deletion review and have the community decide the matter.  Simply recreating the article, no matter how good your intentions are, is considered vandalism as it flies in the face of consensus.  Finally, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors and admins.  No one, least of all me, has set out to irritate you, so you have chosen to feel this emotion.  Get involved with the process but don't take it personally, as we don't own the articles to which we contribute, even if we are the only editors!  Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to deleted pages
Hi, I stumbled across Interregnum of Severus recently (probably tracing a vandal's activity), one of six pages deleted per AfD/Civil War of Albany and Cornwall. These deletions left a lot of dead links in articles (e.g. "See also Interregnum of Severus") and broken succession boxes. I've just fixed these, but it made me wonder whether there is already a Wikipedia mopping-up project to clear away nonsense and spam left in Wikipedia after deletions. Is there? - Fayenatic london (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery for starters. Editors generally cleanup articles as they find them, checking for accuracy and sources as per usual. (aeropagitica) 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil War of the Five Kings
Do you know whether the other kings inserted here are genuine? They look very doubtful to me - all the same dates. (I've asked the same question of User talk:Nicknack009.) - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't sourced the edits, but I imagine that if they were inserted by the editor who was responsible for the articles that I deleted earlier they can be regarded with a degree of caution if not suspicion. You can tag them using fact so yourself or another editor can verify/refute the edits accordingly. (aeropagitica) 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Chacotay 001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chacotay 001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mehrshad123
Hmm, just about to close that but you beat me... ah well, just another to add to the list ;) -- Majorly  (o rly?) 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've stayed away from doing that for a while but the moment I read through the RfA the decision was clear to me! Sorry for treading on your toes! (aeropagitica) 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh you have? I think you should do it more often. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, perhaps I will in future. One can never tell what the RfA page is going to come up with next. (aeropagitica) 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Owendagreat1
This user recently moved the Carlito (wrestler) page to Carlito cool. I request that you warn him and protect the carlito (wrestler) page. Big Boss 0 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello! Rather than posting on to an individual admin's Talk page, you might want to know that any editor can issue a warning - only admins and Bureaucrats can block.  This is to prevent requests from sitting on a sleeping admin's Talk page, letting an editor continue unheeded. Also, the requests for page protection page would be a better place to go to take your business case. Regards, (aeropagitica) 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gynecoprophobia
I do not think it is fair to delete this listing. I think that this word, although it does not exist in dictionaries, is a medical condition and is become a widely popular phenomona. Therefore, it should be reinstated. Thanks you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpn200 (talk • contribs)

Dennis Stamp Article Again
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dennis Stamp. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I see that you deleted this article back in September. How do I go about bringing it back to life? Dennis was actually a fairly notable wrestler in Texas and Florida in the 70's. He held numerous (10) N.W.A. championships and was even featured in Sylvester Stallone's movie Paradise Alley in 1978. Because of his somewhat dubious appearance in Beyond the Mat in the late 90's he has gained a bad rap as fancruft, but I think he is really a valid notable part of wrestling history from the 70's in the South. Please advise. Thanks.

(I updated the deletion review page for this article.)

Jamestrepanier 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks!
For being the first to congratulate me, you get to be the first I thank! I appreciate the support, it meant a lot to me seeing so many editors that I respect adding that +S comment. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    On Belay!

VegaDark's Request for Adminship
 

 Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)