This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You have placed a sockpuppet thing on my talk page - I don't know who these people are but I do know that a[n] admin themselves locked the first accusation as it was unworthy and unproven. I don't know who you are (appareantly (sic) a[n] admin?) but you can also file a harrasment (sic) accusation against the person who started this whole thing - user Fram. Pvcblue 13:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The boilerplate says suspected; it remains to be determined whether it is you who has been inserting links repeatedly in to The Smurfs article. Please confine any comments regarding this matter to the above-linked case page. If you feel that you are being harrassed by another editor then please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for details. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your consistent, repetitive and highly helpful work in alerting newcomers about using their e-mail addresses as their usernames, I, Redux, hereby award you The Working Man's Barnstar. Congratulations! Redux 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are sending a lot of "business" our way ;). Thanks for all your help and keep up the good work. You deserve this recognition! Cheers, Redux 17:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, who'd have thought that I could get a barnstar for warning people about spam? I'm glad that I'm keeping you guys occupied over there! Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I'm sure that you know that we don't redirect mistakenly-created userpages from the articlespace back to their userpages. Once a page has been userfied it can be marked for deletion, either by the author with {{ db-author}} or by us with {{ db-reason}}. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You were a bit too quick for me. As soon as I was done with the userfy, and leaving the user a note, I was going to tag the leftover redirect as a db-r2, but you'd already deleted it. Fan-1967 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was sure that you knew! Sorry to tread on your toes like that! Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the link red? Gazpacho 01:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake entirely, the article is now restored and AfD processed correctly. Thanks for letting me know. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Quantum Magazine page? I had already changed it from the "problematic" content it had, and wrote an article about the old Quantum Magazine. I think that you should look carefully and dicsuss first before deleting something that someone spent time to write... User:Nikolas Karalis, 31 August 2006

Thank you for your comments. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the consensus of the AfD discussion should be overturned, hence the deletion. You are welcome to take it to a deletion review if you think that the article should be restored. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote about it at the deletion review. Check it out, and if you want write your opinion. User:Nikolas Karalis 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock the orgonite page. I am a new user to Wikipedia and was not familiar with the guidelines, so i can imagine that you assumed it was a nonsense page. For you being a martial arts practioner, surely you must be familiour with Qi or prana, your breathing skills depend on it. You probably did not hear of the orgone research and discoveries of Wilhelm Reich and i wish you can take some time and look at his wikipedia entry before you decide to unblock the page or not. Additionaly i made another page, called orgone and i wish to have your input on this. I have a friend who is very active on wikipedia and he can help me to improve my writings if you find them unworthy. You are an very respected member on Wikipedia and I respect your status and trust your expertise. So please take a look at the entry of the late Wilhelm Reich and reconsider your descision. Thank you. Satishbinda, 31 August 2006

I am familiar with Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, being a regular reader of the Fortean Times. This article was deleted several times as nonsense and was in this state when I protected the page from repeated recreation. If you would like the status of the page reviewed, please go to Wikipedia:deletion review and state your case there.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for having another look, I'll do as you've advised! It will be hard for me, since i'm very new but i'm a fast learner. It was brought to my attention that the French wikipedia does have an orgonite entry, which i will use as one of my arguments in the discussion. -- Satishbinda 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just left Netsnipe a similar message, so to be fair I'd better send you the same one :)

Could you consider shortening and 'de-emphasising' your signature? I find using a background colour distracting and it gives your signature more prominence on talk pages (as we should all be equal, that's not a good thing!), and its length fills up diff/edit windows making it harder to find and edit comments. I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, it certainly isn't that big a deal :) WP:SIG is the guideline on the matter. Petros471 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened it to below 200 characters and removed the unecessary (talk), as it links directly to my Talk page in the first place. (aeropagitica) 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aero. When you closed Articles for deletion/Parochialism in Sydney you did not explain the reason for your decision. Why did you delete Parochialism in Sydney? -- WikiCats 08:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasons are in the AfD page: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the sources weren't particularly good:

1. "...I don't come across that incredible parochialism in Sydney, I don't" (Garth Porter)
2. "Easties versus westies... Very entertaining, but no substitute for informed debate." (Genia McCaffery)
3. "...you are not alone however, along with mountain dew in believing that many inhabitants of kings are bogan westies..." (Mr Bark, blog response)
4. "westie, also westy. Someone from Sydney's western suburbs, often used derogatorily to mean uneducated and/or uncultured. Also someone who acts like a westie." (About.com Australian slang dictionary)
5. "...a person from the western suburbs of Sydney, usually characterised as being unsophisticated..." (Marquarie Dictionary)

The first source actively denies the state that the article sought to demonstrate pertains in Sydney; the second source offers no enlightenment on any East-West debate; the third source is a blog response - Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. The final two sources are slang definitions and also do not serve to illuminate the situation, if any exists at all. They might be best served as potential entries for Wiktionary, if that Wiki allows slang.

Finally, if you would like to request that the article be restored, please state your case for doing so at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than this Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the trouble that you went to in explaining your reasons. I will not be seeking to reinstate this article. Editors have being acting to correct an NPOV issue in Wikipedia after Easties (people) was deleted and Westies (people) was kept. The Sydney's name calling dispute was divided across two articles and one was deleted. Parochialism in Sydney was suggested as a possible umbrella article and I attempted to write it based on the page name I was given. We will continue our efforts to address the NPOV issue. Thanks. -- WikiCats 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's great. Good luck with writing about your subject in an NPOV manner. I hope that the final result reflects the diversity of Sydney. I think that it is a great city and I'm looking forward to going back there one day! Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are aware that it is not necessary to delete an article's entire history in order to implement a REDIRECT decision at AFD, right? I've restored the missing revisions for you. HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up on using the subst:at and subst:ab, I wasn't aware of those and will make sure I use them going forward. However, since the result of the vote wasn't a speedy keep but rather a unanimous delete & merge, I took it upon myself (non admin users are encouraged to merge articles where there is consensus). Thanks again! Vpoko 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please also remove the remaining notices on the Eric M. Jackson article? I think the AfD vote pretty clearly resolved those issues too. Jawed3 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability and importance tags have been removed from the Eric M. Jackson article as they were possibly added in bad faith by the proposing editor. (aeropagitica) 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't put the proper closing template on the article talk page. [1] Also it goes at the top of the page. [2] Cheers. Tyrenius 02:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

{{oldafdfull|date= dateOfNomination |result= '''result''' |votepage= articleName }}

File:AviXyrael.gif

I'd like to thank you (aeropagitica) for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8)             — Xyra e l / 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your congratulations. — Xyra e l / 12:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, (aeropagitica). I believe the recommendations for deletion of the Yuria Kato article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria Kato based on non-notability were made based on unfairly inadequate and misleading information. The notability tests were made in English, producing drastically fewer results than are obtained with using her actual Japanese name. Claims of her non-notability showed far, far less notability than she actually shows with the search on her actual, Japanese name (加藤ゆりあ). Similar models who have shown less notability (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikaru Koto 2) have recently failed AfD nominations. Can the case be reconsidered with the evidence of the Japanese search (i.e., significant presence on Amazon and an article on Japanese Wikipedia) being weighed into the matter? Thank you. Dekkappai 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make a case for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. (aeropagitica) 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, (aeropagitica). I'm still learning how this all works and can use all the pointers I can get. Regards. Dekkappai 13:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't articles supposed to be listed on AfD for five days before the trigger is pulled (except for speedys)? This one looks like it lasted 3.5 days. Why the rush? Neier 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have deleted this without merging the content back into Winnie-the-Pooh or removing the redlink. Is this normal? Seems a bit unhelpful. (Genuine question - I haven't been involved in a deletion before) -- Ian Dalziel 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When you send a message to someone about a discussion, it is best to include a link to that discussion in the title of the message in order to assist the reader, as above. The majority decision was to delete the article with no consensus about where the information should go. If you would like to contest the decision, please state your case at Wikipedia:deletion review, preferably with a strategy for restructuring the Winnie the Pooh-related articles that it affects. (aeropagitica) 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting about the discussion - I was commenting about the changes to Wikipedia. -- Ian Dalziel 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done on passing your RfA and becoming an admin. Does this mean that you are admin#1001? I hope that you enjoy wielding the mop and bucket! Please ask if you have any questions about the role. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be #1000 if it wasn't for Dannyisme's duplicate admin account! Actually, I do have one question for you, what tools and skins do you recommend for admin tasks? Cheers,  Netsnipe   ►  21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The skin that I use is the default, Monobook. If I use tools, they are VandalProof and Lupin's popups to preview edits made by others. Everything else is reviewing WP:CSD, New pages, new user accounts and AfD pages. That seems to take up all of my time, lately. (aeropagitica) 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Oops! Hempfel 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC) User:Hempfel

You closed this AFD as "Merged in to Niagara Falls, Ontario." Oakes Park is now a redlink. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages says "Merging should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Even if it seems rather pointless or obscure, leave it in place." If you actually did merge, can you undelete Oakes Park and create the redirect as per the guideline on merging? If you didn't merge, can you adjust your closing comment at the AFD? Thanks in advance. GRBerry 02:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page to another title creates an automatic redirect, say from Oakes Park to Oakes Park, Ontario. I performed a cut-and-paste on the article before deleting the original. A redirect is now in place. (aeropagitica) 07:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: This article was a piece of original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be more suited to a personal website or a blog. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research should not include the use of commonly available tools such as computer programs, where one only needs to enter the appropriate data provided as input to receive other expected data as output. No original research is involved, because someone else has already done the research in order to provide the simple functional computing tool. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And, just like my opening a particular page in a book, I did not personally create this output; instead I simply selected the correct (date, time and location) page, and captured the output to a file, and reported on it, following the WP:5P to the best of my abilities. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You had a thought regarding an astrological conjunction, of which there are many thousands, performed research upon that conjunction and published your findings. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please read WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles to see how a Wikipedia article is constructed. Statements such as "Original research should not include the use of commonly available tools such as computer programs..." do not reference policy and instead state a personal point of view. You may want this to be the case but it is otherwise. Original research, published without references and sources - not the application that you used to create the research in the first place - is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your article is better-suited to a personal website or a blog as it is a product of your own thoughts, the significance of which has not been established through such research methods as a literature review, hence the lack of sources cited. Regards, (aeropagitica) 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I've brought this topic up in the talk page for NOR, because I still believe that I'm correct. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Talk page of WP:NOR is for discussing the NOR policy and relevant issues, not disputes over deleted pages. The proper place to discuss deleted pages is Wikipedia:deletion review. Please remove the information that you have placed on the WP:NOR page and instead formulate a business case for the restoration of your article at Wikipedia:deletion review, following the layout of other discussions rather than a cut-and-paste of correspondence. (aeropagitica) 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This topic was not spitefully brought up at WT:NOR regarding this one particular case, and like I said in good faith toward you, no problem and no dispute with your use of the current NOR policy. I simply want to discuss changing the NOR policy regarding the very relevant issue of using commonly available computing resources as valid referential sources. You aren't wrong, and I personally don't think that I'm wrong. Take care. --Eric R. Meyers ( Ermeyers) ( talk) 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help. Anon user 68.51.8.88 has just violated 3rr on the article entitled TheVanguard.Org. In the process, he has also removed a valid citation to an outside source regarding the erroneous point he's pushing and ignored repeated attempts by numerous users to point that out. He's the same anonymous user who was also the main antagonist against the Rod D. Martin article (Martin being the group's chairman), which situation you resolved. Your help would be most appreciated: I cannot revert again without violating 3rr myself. DelosHarriman 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Were you aware that you can report WP:3RR violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, rather than posting to an individual admin's Talk page? It is better to post there rather than anywhere else in case I or another admin miss the posting or are away from our computers for the evening. (aeropagitica) 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please consider removing the neutrality and compliance templates from the Rod D. Martin article? These were also added by 68.51.8.88 after he lost his bid to have the article deleted, and in fact, everything in the article is sourced, and it just doesn't make any special claims about the guy. It's only not neutral from 68.51.8.88's perspective because he wants the guy deleted entirely. DelosHarriman 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that the requirements for these tags have been satisfied, you can remove them from the article. When you do so, please include a justification in the edit summary and/or place a statement to the effect on the article Talk page. Every editor is allowed to be bold! (aeropagitica) 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, (aeropagitica), for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I am as good a candidate as it seemed and live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD ( talk) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:207.200.116.138 due to the collateral damage that this was causing. Please let me know if you can edit pages again as a result of this. (aeropagitica) 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

— Yes I can, and thank you for your help on this.

Regards, Sca 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We noted that you recently removed the AFD banner from the Mistula article as the consensus was KEEP. Thank you very much for this. However, somebody put it up again for unknown reasons. How may we prevent this from happening again? I think this is a violation to a decision made by the consensus. Again, thank you for your help. -- Webmessiah 08:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah

You probably can't prevent this from happening but you can revert it when it does happen in the future. If the vandal does become persistent, you can report the IP address at WP:AIV using {{ipvandal|xxx}}, where xxx is the IP address. Regards, (aeropagitica) 15:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to tell you that I relisted two of the AfDs ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod D. Martin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric M. Jackson) you closed because a significant amount of the votes in those two AfDs were from confirmed sockpuppets. I hope you don't mind, many thanks. -- WinHunter ^{( talk)} 13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If they are confirmed sockpuppets then this is perfectly alright to do. Any article can be put up for AfD at any time and sock stuffing of an AfD is a legtimate reason to question the validity of the consensus. (aeropagitica) 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The first line of WP:BIO reads "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)."

I dispute the "non-notability" of her. While she may not be notable to some, she may be notable to others, and simply killing the article without any discussion on the talk page makes me think something else is afoot.

Namely: I've added this article three times and three times it's been totally wiped in a matter of seconds. Why are people watching it so closely? There are thousands, if not millions of other articles of people whose "notability" could also be questioned, but these are allowed to stay. If they are deleted, it takes months before someone notices and either deletes it or nominates it for deletion.

I consider her notable enough for inclusion. The topic should be discussed on the talk page, or the article should go to a vote before deletion, rather than simply erasing the hard work of others. User:Sebbeng 22:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that an article should be restored from deletion, please take your business case to Wikipedia:deletion review, stating your policy-related reasons. Simply recreating an article that has been speedily-deleted four times (three on June 19th and once today) is considered vandalism. It is best to achieve consensus before recreating this article. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to accuse someone of vandalism, but much more difficult to explain why an article is being deleted. I've never engaged in vandalism in my life. In fact, I consider repeatedly deleting an article despite external links proving some form of notability (despite the fact that the WP:BIO article clearly says that it's not official policy) to be a form of vandalism. I will take my case elsewhere though. User:Sebbeng 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Denise Paolucci on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Denise Paolucci. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbeng ( talk • contribs)

...especially since your userpage is semi-protected, so the actually clueless (but good intentioned) can't give you a reply and may misconstrue it as bad faith (I presume you don't watch every talk page you post on). This is a specific reference to User talk:Tip02. That being said, your work is greatly appreciated here on Wikipedia. Someone's got to do the dirty work. (vandalism on the user talk page almost certainly means you're doing something right) Signed a fellow admin. — Edward Z. Yang^{( Talk)} 23:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I didn't consider my comments on Rhapsody in Blue to be biting, although they may be to-the-point. Users are free to interpret as they wish, but no slight was implied or explicit in the words, tone or essential message. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply posted on my talk page (sorry, I don't like redundancy). — Edward Z. Yang^{( Talk)} 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)