User talk:Aditya/Archives/Jul/2009

User:Floropolou
The demonstrated fact is that this editor is an s.p.a. with a strong COI, and no visceral understanding about why we are fussing over their POV writing. Empirically speaking, I don't think we should encourage them to think that their COI is not prohibitive. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll bow out of the discussion then.  Aditya  α ß 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your contributions are always appreciated; I tend to be pretty harsh on COI editors, and it's useful to have another perspective. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About: Frank Duckworth AfD and Tony Lewis AfD
Hi Aditya,

I noticed you commented on the Frank Duckworth AfD. I withdrew the appended Tony Lewis deletion. It now has its own [|deletion discussion page]. See User_talk:Shirt58 for why this had been added to your talk page. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About this edit
Aditya-bhai, your opinions are just as important and valuable as mine, or any other Wikipedean. Just because I added something possibly contrary to your opinion doesn't mean you have have to withdraw your AfD comment. Yaar, be bold!--Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Shirt, you misunderstand. I read the full discussion that took place after I submitted my vote and based on that I withdrew. As I said, I'm now neutral on this issue. Nice to see another Indian on WP btw. =)  Aditya  α ß 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

re: deny & mfd
This was a bit of a tough one, in my mind. If it continues to be updated, then it should be deleted per WP:DENY - this might happen because of the MfD anyway. The keepers had said to mark it historical because there is a history behind it. I doubt it's going to be a problem, and if it is then it can be summarily deleted. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion
you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 6 July 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

well...
i suppose we both can keep our names. you can be the black aditya, while i can be the pink aditya. you know, i created the signature before you joined the wikipedia. i hope, i didn't do anything wrong. let's make peace, and stick to our signatures (or may be you can change it to aditya the second or something). lolz. sorry, no offence. i just couldn't resist this little bit of laughter. let's make friends without any change in signatures. pleased to meet you, my dear. Aditya (talk • contribs) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

your comment
Not going to mention where it is or anything, as you know, and that's all that matters. Can you consider toning down your comment a little? "absolutely ridiculous" might be pushing things a bit. Thanks, tedder (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I was pretty irritated so I got carried away. Good luck with your RfA.  Aditya  α ß 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks- for many reasons. See you around. tedder (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote by Keepscases
Thanks for your query. As I won't necessarily be the bureaucrat closing the RfA in question, it may be more productive to get a range of views by posting at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. My general approach is to be very reluctant to entirely discount votes, but to give them a rough weighting after considering whether they give a rationale in terms of the likely competence of the editor in an adminship role, how much support and opposition they gain from other editors commenting, and, to some extent, whether they make it clear what would need to change in order to gain the user's support. In this case, the comment is civil and does make an attempt to address these points, but has received a lot of opposition and no support from other editors - as a result, I would consider that the community does not agree with this concern, and that it should be give very little weight. Warofdreams talk 11:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 27 July 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
 * Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
 * Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
 * Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
 * News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
 * Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe Delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)