User talk:Aitias/archive 2

Wes gilbert

Thank you for your response. I reviewed the details, and agree with not unblocking him. The sandbox is not a free-for-all, and it is obvious he wasn't trying to improve his editing; he was merely being a vandal. Travis declined his unblock, and I have no intention of myself unblocking him at this time. Thanks for your explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Enabling Huggle

Hey, yep I was trying to enable huggle and I was totally confused so thanks a lot! Much appreciated. :) LibLord 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Great work today, by the way. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdg123 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I'm good. ;) You? —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I just wanted to say thankyou for allowing me to use rollback. It really means alot to me that i can be trusted to use it. Thanks! Kira Chinmoku (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aitias. You have new messages at Jake Wartenberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

82.31.95.212

I just told him I'd hold off reverting for 15 minutes, let's see how this plays out. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, generally IPs are allowed to delete warnings at their user talk pages and according to the protection policy deleting warnings is no legitimate reason for protection. However such edits constitute a reason for protection if repeated. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Anonymous-IP_address_warning_deletions. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done ([1]) 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Message from User:Annilita

I noticed that you deleted the page about the book All-of-a-kind Family. I'm curious as to why? It's a popular children's book, and the first in a series. Was there an issue with the information on the page? I'm planning on rereading the series soon, and would be willing to rewrite a page for the book, but I don't want to bother if it's just going to be deleted.

-Anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annilita (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

86.25.50.34

Hey. I noticed you blocked this user for their changing of musical genres without sources. I don't think this is a valid block, considering the genre New Wave is indeed written in capitals (see New Wave music). Is there anything else I'm unaware of? If not, then I think an unblock would probably be appropriate.

I just noticed he is a sock. Nevermind :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

Thank-you for the advice on my Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback to use Wikipedia:Twinkle, It's just the sort of tool I was after. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Your input on this request would be greatly appreciated. I commented here. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Pedro. Thanks for the message. I commented on this request here. While I think the user had not enough experience for rollback yesterday, the work he did since then constitutes enough experience for rollback. Therefore I granted the request. Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, good call. All his recent reversions looked spot on, but as you had declined only yesterday I prefered to leave it back to you on this one! Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Congratulations! —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good questions

Those are some pretty revealing questions you asked Undead warrior 3 (talk · contribs). I plan on throwing my hat in the ring early next year, I hope you have some equally-probing questions for me. It would be kind of sad to be approved by "per noms" who did nothing more than read the nom, read the answers to the basic questions, and do a quick-check of my history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

regarding User:Soccersmith3

I've seen and reverted his vandalism (on Nazism), and I noticed your warning about blocking him in case he vandalizes again in his talk page. I'm not sure what I'm expected to do in such a case, so I left this message to you here. I hope its okay. Fdskjs (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You could have reported the user to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however, leaving a message here was okay as well. :) I blocked the user indefinitely. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent actions

I noticed your removal of rollback from User:ABF for biting, although I didn't see any engagement with ABF - just a summary removal of rollback. This was seemingly for one revert deemed to be incorrect (although not clearly so according to WP:ROLLBACK, which states clearly unproductive edits as sufficient cause for use of rollback). I thought about it before commenting and at first decided against it, but then a few minutes later I saw your own use of rollback on a user page where the user cleared warnings (and eventual block message). I'm not sure of the difference between the two uses of rollback; the latter could be viewed as being more against policy than the former. I'm not necessarily subscribing to that view, but WP:BLANKING (a shortcut to a specific portion of WP:USER) is pretty clear on the subject of not prohibiting blanking of warnings for both named and anonymous editors. Maybe there were more reverts that caused you to remove rollback, so I understand I might not have the whole picture here. Can you provide a little more depth to this, especially in light of your own similar use of rollback? I don't think it's useful to get into a wikilawyering discussion of whether the edit in question was blatant vandalism; that may not be clearly definable in either case, really. But couldn't you have at least engaged the editor first, rather than immediately removing rollback?  Frank  |  talk  19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I may strongly recommend having a look at the relevant policy, as my use of rollback there was perfectly within the policy: Removing a block template while blocked is simply not allowed. Additionally, removing a block template while blocked is absolutely not a good faith edit. It's blatantly against policy. Therefore I feel a bit offended by your allegations. Concerning the revocation of rollback: There is broad consent that rollback can be used for blatant vandalism only (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Template:Rfr/granted). In any case it may not be used for good faith edits and to bite newcomers. Additionally rollback may be removed at any time (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions) if misused — without prior notice (cf. [2]; “Easy come, easy go”). All in all I think my decision was/is reasonable and completely okay. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw the comparison; as I stated above, I understood there could be disagreement and neither of us (nor the project) is well-served by wiki-lawyering. That was far from my main point, which is this: what's the problem with contacting the user when a questionable revert takes place? We often give vandals four warnings before blocking; don't we owe a long-term contributor with over 17,000 edits at least as much respect?  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The revert was not questionable, but simply completely inappropriate. Biting newcomers is unacceptable. Again, I think I explained it quite elaborately above why there was no need to contact the user before removing the tool. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And biting valued vandal-fighters (>17K contributions) does not square very well with WP:AGF.  Frank  |  talk  21:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for becoming uncivil, Frank. By the way, you may be interested in this discussion. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And now it is my turn to feel a bit offended by your allegation of incivility. Regarding that discussion, I wasn't trying (and still am not trying) to get you to reverse anything, but rather to consider another point of view. We all need to balance the risk of driving away newcomers (which you correctly point out) against the risk of driving away long-time contributors (which has been my point), especially with little or no engagement. I see far more egregious stuff go on around here that is tolerated and I just feel we [all] can do better with not-so-much effort. I don't think that's uncivil at all.  Frank  |  talk  21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) (I'm watching your page; no need to give me an orange bar.)

Firstly, there was nothing intended to be offending in my comment: Simply, I felt your comment to be a bit impolite. If it was not intended to be impolite, I'm sorry for the allegation. Secondly, I still can't see what I did wrong. Again, the edit was clearly inappropriate and simply justified a revokation of the rollback permission. More important, I have to ask you for elaborating and explaining your allegation of biting valued vandal-fighters. Actually, could you please explain how I was biting User:ABF? I think this claim is absolutely incorrect, unjustified and inappropriate. I removed the rollback permission from User:ABF's account — whilst I explained several times why this was completely in accordance with our rules and justified/reasonable, you never explained why this was not in accordance with our rules. Then I notified User:ABF about the revocation of his rollback right and about the reasons for the revocation. Again, I have to ask, how at all was this biting? After a discussion (linked above) User:ABF noticed that his edit was inappropriate and why his edit was inappropriate. Additionally, he promised to be more careful in the future. After that I re-granted rollback. Once again, could you please explain how your allegation of biting does apply here? Finally, could you please explain what you mean with “not-so-much effort”? Summarising I again feel this allegation of biting to be inappropriate and offending. — Aitias // discussion 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "wrong" is not the way to characterize things; I thought it could have been handled differently. You are focused on the idea that User:ABF performed an action that was clearly inappropriate, and that such action - by itself - is sufficient to remove rollback privileges. My issue is this: it is inappropriate for vandals to deface pages, and yet we often give them several warnings. In the case of really "bad" vandalism, we do block immediately. I just don't think this one revert - from a long-standing editor who has reverted literally thousands of vandalism edits - was sufficiently "bad" to remove rollback without engaging the editor first. It was never about "give it back" - it has always been about engaging the editor with a discussion about the edit. Your removal of the rollback privilege may very well have fallen within policy, but there needs to be judgment applied in all cases on this project (including admin action), and I am questioning the judgment behind this one action. If this were a new user who didn't understand rollback, that would be a different story. If it were an established user who had suddenly gone berserk with rollback, that would be a different story. But neither of these is the case. Also, you specifically said that User:ABF was biting a new user. These two things combined are why I used the term "bite" to describe your immediate removal of rollback. My opinion is that it was not necessary to remove rollback in order to achieve the desired effect; you could just as easily have left a note (hence the "not-so-much effort" idea). The difference is that one is collaborative, and the other appears punitive. Now - as to the inappropriate rollback and the new user who may have been driven away by the revert, I have sympathy with this point of view. This is a big, intimidating place, and people may very quickly form negative opinions, and we, the experienced editors, are often the emissaries that new users must gauge the project by. But I ask you: after identifying this inappropriate edit and removing rollback from a long-established editor, did you go to the user who had been "wronged" and offer any olive branch?  Frank  |  talk  00:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank, there was nothing punitive in my action. You said it yourself, biting newcomers and thus scaring them away must be averted. It was preventative, not punitive at all. One thing has to be said: Do you really want to claim that it would have been my duty to apologise to that user? It would have been ABF's responsibility to do that, not mine. — Aitias // discussion 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You neither contacted the user nor asked User:ABF to do so. If your intent was truly to protect the project and welcome new users, it would seem to me that it would be most appropriate to see that whatever wrong you perceived should be righted - regardless of who does it. Failing that, your immediate removal of rollback appears more punitive than preventive. This is a collaborative project; my whole point in contacting you was that I think more collaboration could have taken place.  Frank  |  talk  19:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, it's simply a matter of tact to apologise if one makes a mistake; something that should go without saying. I think everyone knows that. Therefore I think it's kind of strange that you claim now it would have been my duty to go to User:ABF and tell him something that is a blatant matter of course — plainly, I don't understand your claim at all. Additionally, what does “If your intent was truly to protect the project” mean? Do you seriously want to allege that my intention was to damage the project? With all due respect, in my whole time here I never read something that was that shameless and disrespectful. I think that's going vastly too far and is more than just offending. — Aitias // discussion 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that there was nothing punitive in your action and that it was purely preventative. My comment reacted to that - nothing more. You prevented nothing; you punished a user after the fact for a perceived error and then did nothing to either correct said perceived error or encourage the editor to do so. Nothing in that either states or even implies any intent on your part to harm anything. To once again repeat my central point: I felt it could have been handled better - not that you did any harm.  Frank  |  talk  02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems like I have to emphasise this: There was simply no need to encourage. As I wrote above, if one makes a mistake it is a blatant matter of course to apologise. Whilst I explained elaborately above why there was nothing punitive, you again claim it would have been punitive, without giving reasons.

To sum this whole discussion up: You came here complaining and making various allegations; Whilst I really tried to explain providing very detailed rationales, you now just start repeating your claims — without going into my rationales (not even a bit).

Thus, I feel there is no point in any further discussion here — If you wish to complain about me I am sure you know where to go. I for one still think my course of action was completely justified and reasonable here. — Aitias // discussion 14:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel no need to complain; I've asked you to consider an alternate course of action should such a situation arise in the future. I assume good faith; I agree that we've each made our points and our discussion has run its course. Thanks for your engagement on the matter; while I can't necessarily say I feel like you see my point, I certainly can see you've made an effort to do so, and I appreciate your time and attention.  Frank  |  talk  14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Deavenger

Hey, Aitias. Just wanted to let you know that I put in my $0.02 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Deavenger. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Juliancolton. Thanks for the message. Meanwhile, Tiptoety has decided on that request. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, I'm kind of a new user, and was looking for a cool signature, and I like yours. Would you do me kindly and explain how to make mine like yours? Alex Bieser (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Well, I simply copied User:Alex.muller's signature and (as I thought using exactly the same signature could be a bit confusing) modified it a bit. If you want to change your signature you can do so here. Hope that helps. — Aitias // discussion 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank'ee. I'm surprised you put yourself through the torture of manual unprotection - I'm pretty sure it can be done using Twinkle! Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. :) Well, I tried using a script, however it didn't work, so I did it manually. — Aitias // discussion 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NPA protection

I do not think that there is a need for keeping the protection at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I, for one, do not intend to make any further edits, and there is growing consensus about what to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Unprotected. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED/Talk header1

You speedy deleted this page under U1. It is a portion of the user in question's talk page history. He is not leaving, and we don't delete talk page histories generally unless they are. RMHED has consented to restoration, which I will do presently; just leaving you a note. seresin ( ¡? )  20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for the message. — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you decline?

Am I not entitled the right to remove my own talk page? I wasn't asking to delete another person's page, but simply my own. I await a response that explains the reasoning of preventing my request from happening. --CRACK-A-BACK (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages are generally not deleted (cf. Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages). — Aitias // discussion 20:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback denied

Hello Aitias,

The example you gave here was certainly an error on my part, but I believe that is the exception rather than the rule. At the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, that page was under rapid fire attack at the time and the page is over 100K (causing serious issues loading the diffs in Firefox). I noticed my error right away but within just a minute a number of folks had descended on the article to help out and the issue became moot. I should add that I revisited the article later and was able to assist a little in the clean-up.

In general, I believe I do a better than average job at catching old and missed vandalism. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. One of the things I appreciate about Wikipedia is that we are very careful handing out tools to admins, however, in this case -- given my edit history taken as a whole -- I feel you might have been overly cautious. In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my reply and I understand entirely if you do not agree. Sincerely, —Noah 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Noah. I do agree. Thanks for providing this detailed explanation.  Done: Granted rollback. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Your initial denial is most certainly a blessing in disguise: an excellent reminder to always take a deep breath before I click. Cheers, —Noah 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Happy editing, — Aitias // discussion 00:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to that message on my talk page. :) Best wishes and Merry Christmas to you. :) Acalamari 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. :) Thanks a lot, the same to you! Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My talk

Please delete my talk page because i by mistake used my IP to edit. so delete and recreate so it dissepears. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done — Aitias // discussion 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!!

The Rolling Camel's Barnstar! . The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Thanks for the barnstar. — Aitias // discussion 02:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Thanks for the note. I replied at the RFPP page. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I have replied there. — Aitias // discussion 04:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your input

Thanks for the note. I've left a comment at AN/I. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the quick reply there. :) — Aitias // discussion 04:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Knotslanding

Thanks for the block on Knotslanding just a short while ago. He is currently threatening to continue reverting as soon as the block expires. Do you think that the block might need to be extended to prevent further disruption from occurring? He clearly is not accepting and understanding the 3RR right now, either way (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry for the late reply, but I was offline until now. Seems like two admins reviewed the block and none of them saw a need to extend. Therefore I think it's the best to wait until the block expires and to monitor his contributions then. If he starts edit warring again, he will be blocked for an extended period of time. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 13:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Aitias, Knotslanding came back to the article and reverted the bulk of the changes made in the last 24 hours ([8]). He also posted this to his talk page which shows, again, that he does not understand 3RR and does not plan to heed any warnings from anyone. His attitude on the talk page of the article doesn't seem to be productive either (he insists that original research is perfectly fine in the place of sources). Any thoughts? either way (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Knotslanding for 3 days and pointed out that his behaviour can not be tolerated. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional deletions

Hello, Aitias ... Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicles of Arthagia, there were three other articles that should have been deleted when it was closed ... would you please delete them as well? Happy Editing! — 72.75.108.10 (talk · contribs) _{08:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)}

 Done. Thanks for the message. — Aitias // discussion 12:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Relists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassi Nova
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Louis Rivas

Just out of curiosity - isn't 3 people agreeing on a "delete" outcome after a full 5-day period, with no arguments whatsoever to keep the article, enough to call that a consensus to delete? I'm just wondering what the reason for relisting these AfD's was, in case I missed something here. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in each case one person was the nominator. That means there were 2 opinions in addition to the nominatior; I think there should be at least 3 opinions in addition to the nominator to constitute a true consensus. At least, I think, there is no harm in relisting such a debate, rather exactly the opposite. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure I agree entirely (I'd say that 3 people, including the nom, agreeing entirely without any dissenting arguments makes consensus enough) but indeed there's no harm in relisting it and it's an attitude that entirely makes sense. Thanks for the rationale. ~ mazca ^t|c 02:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope you don't understand me wrong — I completely agree with you that 3 people, including the nom, agreeing entirely without any dissenting arguments may constitute enough consensus. However, I still think it's useful to relist such a debate to get a more thorough result. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I understand your reasoning completely even if I'd possibly have called it a 'delete' consensus in this case myself. Thanks again for elaborating on it. :) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aitias. You have new messages at Jake Wartenberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done — Aitias // discussion 03:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

— Aitias // discussion 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AN3

Hi. As a friendly reminder, when you process an AN3 report, please remember to put the result in the section header (eg [9]) so that other admins can quickly look at the table of contents to find the first report that needs to be processed. Thanks! --B (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reminder. :) I will do so in the future. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 15:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lisa Leveridge

Just like to ask why the page on Lisa Leveridge has been deleted.

(60.242.161.42 (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

It has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Leveridge. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:ChampagnePool-Wai-O-Tapu rotated MC.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 31, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-12-31. howcheng {chat} 19:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. — Aitias // discussion 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Some Information

Hey there :)

Was just wondering how long from my block would I have to wait to re-apply for Rollback?

Thanks

--

Frankie0607

21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Well, I think you should wait at least one month as of now. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Knotslanding

Hello. Just wanted to let you know that I have indefinitely blocked Knotslanding (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) as being a sock of HeadMouse (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and thanks for blocking him. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

Ashbey has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks a lot! — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP:PROD

I'm using Twinkle. If you use it, be sure to check the pages in advance to make sure there are no prior deletions and to be sure the PROD tag wasn't removed and re-added. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That should work, actually. Try visiting Category:Proposed deletion as of 21 December 2008 where you should have a 'deprod' tab. Also, you don't need the importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleprod.js'); bit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

XMLKR

I see you just deleted XMLKR. Fully agree. Clearly the author just published a paper on the subject and was trying to draw attention to it. I checked and found no independent sources. But the concept seems interesting, may generate discussion among the computing theorists, and may turn into an important topic. Or may not. Is there any way to watch a deleted page? I would like to be alerted if it is recreated. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can watchlist deleted pages just as existing ones. Alternatively, just click this link. :) Hope that helps. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That worked - thanks Aymatth2 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Jane Scharf

Although the weight of the !votes were for deletion, I think the sources I brought up at the end, more than showed “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” There were 3 RS articles on her cited in the article, all prior to her candidacy. I didn't have time to do more. Nobody !voted after mine, perhaps because of the holidays. I think these sources deserved discussion,. so I'm asking for relisting again.John Z (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The debate was open for more than 10 days and there was a lot of input from the community. The outcome was a clear consensus for deletion (cf. my closing statement). However, you are completely free to go to the Wikipedia:Deletion review. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletereason-dropdown

Nice idea with the PROD in the deletereason-dropdown, quite handy I guess. You might want to consider requesting a bot to change that every day automatically (or better yet, request to add this as a task to an existing admin bot, probably CSD R1 Deletion Bot (talk · contribs)). What do you think? SoWhy 23:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! I have asked User:Chris G for his input. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a PROD admin bot would be a good idea, there's to many ways you could trick the bot into deleting a good article IMO --Chris 08:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the idea. Aitias boldly added the PROD category to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown but that changes every day so an admin bot would have to change it to the correct date once a day. Not delete the articles, just change the reason in the dropdown so PROD-patrollers can select it easily from there.

Skier Dude (talk · contribs) disagrees with the change though anyway [10], so we'd have to discuss it first. But in case there is consensus to add it, it would be a good thing if a bot, preferably one that already works in deletion, could make that single change daily. Regards SoWhy 12:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this thread I started at the talk page. Happy-melon offered a nice solution that would not need any bot updates :-) SoWhy 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of teen dramas

I don't at all disagree with your result here, but I am interested to know how, (assuming you read the AfD properly, or even skimmed it), you managed to miss the fact that it was a joint nomination... _TalkIslander 17:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that has nothing to do with not having read the debate properly. Of course I have read the debate properly. However I close AfD debates using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js. Unfortunately, it has missed the other two lists. I have done them manually now ([11], [12], [13], [14]). Sorry, and thanks for the reminder. — Aitias // discussion 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A "relist war" :)?

Our relists seem to be colliding. I've already suggested to Zman that his script check for edit conflicts. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Replied at Ron Ritzman's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge Network

Hi, I've just noticed you deleted this after a WP:PROD. I'd added some references since the tag was added: do you think you could have a look at it and see whether you're satisfied it's non-notable? I initiated the article & reckon it's notable, but I live round Cambridge and am conscious I may have a local bias! :-) Dsp13 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted that article as it was an expired WP:PROD. Do you want me to restore it? :) — Aitias // discussion 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Dsp13 (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Of course I had to nominate it for deletion. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks! Dsp13 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Evil Elmo

The Evil Elmo article was a legitimate article. It was not nonsense. It was an article about a silly phenomenon, but it was not a silly article. It should not have been removed.--Jtle515 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It was an expired WP:PROD. Do you want me to restore it? — Aitias // discussion 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hey, you recently closed this AfD debate as "delete", and deleted the main article nominated. There were however another four articles co-nominated for the same reasons, which still exist. Could you delete those also, cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's another thing on the Zman script wishlist, closing AFDs for multiple articles. I've G6ed the co-nominated articles. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some advice

A word of advice for the future: actually try to understand a situation before you start judging it. Prophaniti (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to your block? Could you please elaborate a bit? :) — Aitias // discussion 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Animum/revdelete.js

(I'm replying here because this thread has already been archived from my talk page.)

I myself didn't run into any problems when I tested the script, but I think I've fixed the problems that you've had. Please tell me if you run into any more malfunctions.

Yours, —Animum (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Animum. :) — Aitias // discussion 01:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED

Thank you. Anthony 62.103.147.54 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two questions:

• Will you consider reinstating rollback on that account considering that it was only the middle revert which used the tool specifically (the other two providing edit summaries)?
• Do you intend to block 62.103.147.54 for edit warring or would you object to another admin doing so?

• Thanks. Protonk (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Even if it was the middle revert, it was obviously used to edit war. Additionally the use was inappropriate anyway: Rollback may be used to revert blatant cases of vandalism only. Having that said, I don't think reinstating rollback is a good idea.
• As far as I can see there were only 3 reverts by the IP. Have I missed something? Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, but both were edit warring, whether or not they tripped the 3RR. As for the rollback thing, I'm aware of the purposes and limits of rollback, but my point was that one revert in a group of "undo + edit summary" hardly shows intent to misuse the tool. He could have easily clicked "rollback" instead of "undo" in the history or diff window. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to block the IP as you think a block is reasonable, I don't object. Regarding rollback, may I point to this:

“Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.” (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions)

Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no intent to block the IP. As for the reading of the rules...that's your prerogative, I guess. But you better take the tool away from me if one revert outside the policy constitutes misuse of the tool. Protonk (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To Aitias: Just wanted to say sorry about starting the whole thing - as I said on RMHED's talk page I should have known better but I didn't. I would expect people who know better to help, so to that extend thanks again for helping. Hope it's not a huge issue. Anthony Antiouk (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all and no reason for apologising. Bluntly, I don't know why people keep biting. Your edits clearly were not vandalism, they were obvious good faith edits. Simply, people are applying double standards. Again, your edits were not vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Aitias // discussion 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti

You gave this user his third block for edit warring a couple days ago. You may want to look at Static-X he is already up to three reverts in a very short period. He still apparently doesn't understand not to edit war. Landon1980 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If he does another revert, just leave me a note here or report him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Building a Future Deletion Question

Hi Aitas,

I was curious if you could give me a little more explantion for the deletion of the page "Building a Future". This was the deletion log entry: 22:08, 27 December 2008 Aitias (Talk | contribs) deleted "Building a future" ‎ (Category:Proposed deletion as of 22 December 2008)

Are there modifications I should make to bring this page up to standards?

Thanks, 71.170.118.217 (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted that article as it was an expired WP:PROD. Do you want me to restore it? :) — Aitias // discussion 01:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if possible, it would be fantastic if it could be restored. This is my first article to compile, so even after browsing the documents, I didn't realize it was marked as WP:PROD until you mentioned it.

71.170.118.217 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Of course I had to nominate it for deletion. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback for dbo789

Thanks! I'll be sure to use it well! --Dbo789 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RMHED

I've moved the discussion to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see that it's back on RMHED's talk page but I think you owe us an answer to my question after you've accused me of putting words in your mouth. Please reply on User talk:RMHED. 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This has certainly been an interesting case to ponder. I hope I haven't offended you with my response, but I was a little testy after interpreting what you wrote as saying I was not impartial. I think we just disagree on the block and should leave it at that. You had the best of intent, as did I and probably Anthony (who just didn't understand the CSD process) and RMHED (who saw Anthony's actions as I did). I think this issue is closed. Shake? Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

*whew*, that was a landmine I could have easily stepped on. I sometimes patrol CAT:CSD and remove bad speedy tags. I definitely would have removed the one from Manning_Marable with an edit summary recommending AFD. The only difference is I wouldn't have played wiki-ping-pong with the tagger. I would have left a note on the tagger's talk page and if he retagged again, I would have asked one of the admins on IRC #wikipedia-en to review the situation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Many thanks, Springnuts (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you for userfication...

Have a great new year!--Cerejota (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks, the same to you! :) — Aitias // discussion 02:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dylan0513's unblock request

Hello Aitias. I have commented in Dylan0513's unblock discussion. Dylan has now made this statement: I won't edit the article until a consensus has been reached again. I am passing this along in case you consider this to be enough justification for you to lift or shorten his block. You obviously can talk to him directly if you would like to get additional assurances. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Replied at User:EdJohnston's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 04:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping to deal with my 3RR/ANI of BWilikins earlier. You were a big help and I can't express how thankful I am for Wikipedia to have administrators like you dealing with these issues. Tavix (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) Was happy to help. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Agreed. No hard feelings. Best regards for the New Year and I look forward to working with you. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Replied at Toddst1's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 02:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Y2J sub-nominations

Hi, you closed the Y2J AFD, would you mind closing the other two articles nominated? Juzhong (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done (and to think I only had this talk page watched because I posted here once. Aitias has given me plenty of AFD work :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again, Ron. — Aitias // discussion 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Greeting

Wish You a happy new year.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You have truly outstanding in all aspects of editing,civilty,being friendly and have shown very high commitment and have maintained high standards in all aspects.Wikipedia runs due to users like you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Pharaoh of the Wizards. I wish you all the very best for the new year! Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 time!

To a good 2008 and to an even better 2009. Happy New Year! Acalamari 23:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You've had the first edit two years in a row. 2008 and 2009. Heh, congratulations, and happy new year! :D WODUP 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Whilst it (obviously) was planned last year, it merely was by coincidence this year. I wish you a Happy New Year as well. :) — Aitias // discussion 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa!

You were the first person to make an edit in '09! 60.230.124.64 (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for both occasions! :) Acalamari 00:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 23:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Dear Aitias,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2008 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2009 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2009 :-),

 Ashbey  Ӝ  00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this kind message, Ashbey. :) A Happy New Year to you and yours as well. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter's edit warring

Given that the noticeboard is for edit-warring, not just 3RR, I'm asking you to remove your current response [15] and either re-evaluate it, or leave it to someone else. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay then. Hope that was okay. — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to beef up the report a bit. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've asked in the past for suggestions on how editors reporting edit-warring could write better reports. I thought the multiple threats and assumptions of bad faith would make this a very clear-cut case, so I'm not sure if I just haven't documented them well enough or if there is additional criteria that I should address. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First edit of 2009

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=261184887 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=261184888. You sir, have won. — neuro^(talk) 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've mentioned already above, merely by coincidence this year. :) — Aitias // discussion 02:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ack, didn't notice. Sorry! — neuro^(talk) 02:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — Aitias // discussion 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sick Dude

Hello Aitias,

I just returned home to discover my wikipedia entry for "Sick Dude" had been deleted by you. I just wanted to send you this note because I'm not entirely sure why. The user, snigbrook, had some problems with my definition, but all my research and references were 100% accurate. How can one user stand in the way of legitimate, interesting information being put here on wikipedia? I spent a lot of time looking into my research and am frankly a little upset by this, especially since my family has donated money to wikipedia in the past to keep it going. I thought this site was for factual articles that people may find of interest. I didn't think one or two people's opinions on a matter could prevent an entire group of people from discovering an idea or a concept that exists out in the real world. There is a legitimate web based organization that is promoting this and I think it's a valuable entry for wikipedia.

May I please re-build this site with yours' and wikipedia's blessing? It would mean a lot to many people. I hope you understand.

Thank you! Aaron --70.226.95.91 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a clear and obvious consensus for deletion. So, I'm afraid that I won't be able to help you here. — Aitias // discussion 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Aitias,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Majorly. :) I wish you all the very best for the new year too! Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Myung-bak

Hello, I'm Caspian bue, Currently, my computer has serious problems, so L and P are not typed (should be copied). I had considered to take the matter to ANI but Sennen has blamed me for taking his issues to ANI, so I rather made my efforts to talk to him. However, this issue is deeply related to his long and persistent "wikistalking' "harassing" me for over one year. Several days ago, an IP user 76.172.217.103 (talk · contribs) falsely displayed that Mr. Lee is "Zainichi Korean"[16][17][18] as insisting that even Korean students temporarily living in Japan are Zainichi[19] I reverted his false labeling as WP:BLP violation because Lee Myeong-bak is neither living in Japan nor a permanent resident carrying with "an alien card". In Korea (both South and North), any allegation regarding any involvement of Empire of Japan has caused great "defamation". However, on the same day, right after that, Sennen goroshi suddenly inserted this passage like "also known as Akihiro Tsukiyama" and "formerly known as Akihiro Tsukiyama" to the intro of the article. That is original research. He also falsely accused me of doing vandalism[[20]][21] due to removing his such violation without sources. After me and others pointed out that his caim is not supported by any source. Then, he changed the subject to just include his birth name, but which is already in the next thread about his childhood. It was also discussed, but he did not accept the consensus. He also wikistaked me to Roux's RFA right after I voted[22] and reverted my edits on History of Japan.[23] As far as I've known he never voted for RFA, and edited the article for History of Japan. But he always does that to provoke me. When he was blocked in his previous occassion, he promised not to do "wikistaking' "harassing" me, but well, did not work. --Caspian blue 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have blocked the user due to persistent edit warring for 1 week. What do you expect me to do now? :) — Aitias // discussion 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He demands me to get blocked and I'm afraid that he woud resume the same behaviors[24] after his block is expired. --Caspian blue 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I was fairly uninvolved with that issue. Therefore, of course, I'm not very familiar with that problem either. Perhaps it's the best for you to contact admins, which were more involved with that or bring it again to AN/I? I'm afraid that I won't be able to do much for you here. — Aitias // discussion 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Message from User:190.166.189.189

Dude, why did you erase the Strange Night Visitors article. I was just about to show it to a friend when I saw it was deleted. It might not have been the greatest article ever but it was better than nothing and provided some good external links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.189.189 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? :) — Aitias // discussion 20:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

7d physics deletion

I'm unclear as to the specific reason for the articles (7d physics) deletion: is it unpublished OR?

 I can perceive logical arguments that some of the conclusions derived from the mathematical work are OR, but (non theoretical) mathematical conclusions can never be OR and therefore the mathematical work in the article is not OR.  It definitely has value as it highlights several mathematical relationships not directly mentioned in other wikipedia articles on subjects related to it (Kaluza Klein theory, m theory, special relativity, de Broglie hypothesis).  I suppose the relationships could be edited into these articles, but it would certainly clutter them up unnecessarily when we could instead have a single article that describes these relationships.  Perhaps the only important relationships are the one between de Broglie and Compton wavelengths (added to these articles), the trigonometric relativistic mass/energy relationships (added to relativity articles), and the gravitational distance test for dark matter (perhaps added to dark matter article).  The rest is probably unnecessary at this point.  

Can I get a copy of the article (7d physics) (text with latex included) for my records?

  Thank you for your time,

 Matt

The article 7d Physics has been deleted per a clear and obvious consensus for deletion here. — Aitias // discussion 22:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete files

Hi! I want you to delete all my map files of Val Poschiavo (see my contributions) that i have uploaded in the last time. Have a nice day! The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All those listed here? — Aitias // discussion 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, just the ones uploaded January 2. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The images i have uploaded today schould be removed. Not the others. The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The Rolling Camel (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Aitias // discussion 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Simon_Tatham's_Portable_Puzzle_Collection

On 28th december you deleted Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection. Unfortunately I haven't been able to figure out why you deleted it. Could you point me to the discussion, log or whatever? I am planning to recreate the article, and I would like to avoid the issues that caused this deletion in the first place. Thank you. Koert van der Veer (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was an expired WP:PROD. Do you want me to restore it? In this case, I would have to nominate it for deletion. — Aitias // discussion 22:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

Hello:

The article "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan" was deleted.

I believe the article deletion nomination was ill-considered.

The article, at the time of the deletion nomination, had surmountable problems.

The problems were in the process of being fixed, while the deletion debate raged.

The subject of the article is notable, if one checks the verifiable, widely-published, third-party references included in the article.

In particular, the subject of the article is a family part of the immemorial Polish nobility.

In the 18th century, nobility tracing its origins before the 15th century represented only 5% of the noble population as a whole. I believe that makes this family, the subject of the article, notable, particularly since the family has notable members, too.

SEE: http://books.google.com/books?id=MnwmMOWK-PsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136

I also feel the motives behind the deletion nomination of the article were made in bad faith.

The deletion nomination, and the subsequent delete votes, seemed to be more about this article being an attempt by some champion of an upstart noble family to seek praise and glory on Wikipedia.

That was not the intent.

The article on nobility clearly states the term nobility originally meant those who were known or notable.

This family, who appears in several widely-published academic sources, is inherently notable. This is documented and the evidence supplied with the article.

Also, there are notable members of the family, with articles of their own. It seems ridiculous not to have a separate article on their background, given the family they've come from is notable. Without the article on their family, the same information about their background needs to be repeated in several articles. This is not good.

I do not think the article deserved deletion nomination in the first place, as notability is separate from fame, importance, or popularity.

Please undelete the article, and if this is not possible, please suggest what steps must be taken next for a deletion review.

Thank You -- Exxess (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The result of the relevant debate is blatantly obvious: There is a clear consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion. I am not going to undelete the article, however you are completely free to contact the deletion review. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Expired Prods

Hello Aitias, I notice you've been deleting expired Prods without giving the reason why the article was prodded in the deletion summary. Can you please include the Prod rationale in the deletion summary as this is useful to non-admins. Thanking you, RMHED (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a reason for always copying the given reason into the deletion summary. Actually, I don't see a need either. Non-admins can not see the content of the deleted article, thus they could not check whether the given reason applied anyway. Therefore I think that would be pointless extra work. — Aitias // discussion 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is policy to provide an informative deletion reason Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure_for_administrators. Non-admins may not be able to check the article to see if the rationale was apt, (the deleting admin should have done this anyways) but it does at least give them a reason as to why it was prodded. RMHED (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll no more delete any expired prods. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 23:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please believe it wasn't my intent to be overly critical, you are by no means the only admin that I've messaged about this oversight. It really can be useful to non-admins to get a sense as to why an article was prodded. RMHED (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at my recent prod deletions, please? Are they okay with you? — Aitias // discussion 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely deletions, no complaints from me. Though feel free to drop the "Listed for at least 5 days without any objections against a deletion" line, if it makes things easier. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Aitias and RMHED. I *do* like including the Prod summary in the deletion reason. Occasionally I feel free to improve upon it if I believe the article merits deletion, but the Prodder's reason might be restated more clearly. The line 'Listed for at least five days' could easily be dispensed with as uninformative. Since Prods are easily undone on request, anyone who wants to see the full article can do so. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination)

Fork found: Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. It may be prudent to review creator's other contribs for other possible forks.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Slakr has deleted that page already. — Aitias // discussion 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination)

Hiya. It looks like Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family ended up ultimately getting moved to Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan, but the closer script only deleted the redirect, so I topped it off on request from another editor. Feel free to undo and/or trout me if I totally missed something. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I totally should have read this talk page first. Ignore me. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Recreate -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

Hi:

Regarding:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family (2nd nomination)

While that debate was going on, I moved the article to:

Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

That is a substantial rewrite that addresses the notability concerns.

This second article was deleted as a result of being linked to the first article.

Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

"If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available."

I'd like to recreated my new article with the title "Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan"; but, I don't want it immediately deleted. I am trying to act in good faith.

Please advise.

Thank you. -- Exxess (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Welcome-vandal templates

Hi Aitias, do you know how I get my signature to sign properly on the {{welcomevandal}} and {{welcome-anon-vandal}} templates instead of those four tides and the wide box thing? (I tried to sign afer template). Thanks! :) Versus22 _talk 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those templates have to be substituted. {{subst:welcomevandal}} does work, doesn't it? :) — Aitias // discussion 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks! :) Versus22 _talk 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! :) — Aitias // discussion 07:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

new references added before deletion of page for Donovan King

Hello, I added references (several news articles and radio reports) including interviews with Donovan King and reports on him and his projects to show that Mr. King is in fact a notable actor. These included interviews on the CBC and articles in national Canadian media such as The Globe and Mail and the National Post.

Mr King is the founder of the Optative Theatrical Laboratories which has been in operation since 1999 and conceptualizer and co-founder of the International Infringement Festival which began in Montreal and has since spread to other cities such as Buffalo, New York and Bordeaux, France. He is also listed in the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia.

I am not the author of the article in question and noticed that it was rather sparse and contained no references which is why I added them. I think that I was a little late and discussions had already closed. If this is the case, please tell me if I should proceed by posting a new, more detailed article on Mr. King or if you could put the old article back so the discussion could continue.

thanks,

Leaflord222 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted that article as it was an expired WP:PROD. Do you want me to restore it? In that case I would have to nominate it for deletion of course. — Aitias // discussion 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Donovan King article deletion

Yes, please do that. If possible, please restore the version where I had already added the references,

thanks

Leaflord222 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 07:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my article "Zak Martin"?

I put a considerable amount of work into this article and provide all the requested references (far more than I have seen on most other Wiki biographical articles).

It is not true that this article was marked for deletion and no-one objected. I objected, and asked you what specific changes needed to be made to the page in order to prevent it from being deleted.

You state that this article was marked for "speedy deletion". I have carefully read the criteria used to determine whether articles should be marked for "speedy deletion", and none apply to the article I posted - not remotely. As a professional journalist of some 35 years I take serious exception to my work being trashed - apparently arbitrarily - on a pretext that does not apply.

I would therefore like to know exactly why this article was deleted, and to whom I should make a formal complaint with regard to its deletion. Alternatively, please restore the article with specific suggestions as to how to make it acceptable for publication in Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Jocelyn Costa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.16.166 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Article restored. Nominated for deletion. Please voice your opinion here. — Aitias // discussion 16:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Message from User:Apotek31

Hi Aitias, why was my page deleted in the first place? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Curnow

"Seems only claim to notability is his autobiography" Can you elaborate on this ?

Since a didn't got the chance to debate over its deletion (just got back from vacation) I would like to resubmit a revised version of my entry. Therefore, should I focus more on the impact of Dr. Curnow's work and legacy?

Tks alot.

P.S: Can I get alerts send to my personal email from Wikipedia?

---

23:11, 4 January 2009 Aitias (Talk | contribs) deleted "Eugene Curnow" ‎ (Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 December 2008: Listed for at least 5 days without any objections against a deletion; given reason: Fails WP:BIO, seems only claim to notability is his autobiography.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotek31 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Article restored. Nominated for deletion. Please voice your opinion here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joachim Winterlich

Joachim Winterlich is nominated for DYK but needs some more cleanup, Can you please fix it? The Rolling Camel (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've done a few (very) minor fixes. I'm afraid that I won't be able to do much more. Sorry, — Aitias // discussion 00:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Geosurveillance Population / Geosurveillance AfD - you only deleted the redirect

During the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geosurveillance AfD, the article was moved to Geosurveillance Population from Geosurveillance. You deleted only the redirect at Geosurveillance. The article is still present at Geosurveillance Population, and should be deleted per the AfD. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.  Done. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiLove!

DougsTech (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Aitias,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Dew on a Equisetum fluviatile Luc Viatour.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 8, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-08. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. — Aitias // discussion 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoke Damerel Primary School

Hi, please see my comment at this AfD. TerriersFan (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done. by User:MacGyverMagic. — Aitias // discussion 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Expendables

Hello, per the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables (2010 film), I was wondering if you could userfy the article at User:Erik/The Expendables (2010 film). I'm pretty up to date about productions, and I can recreate the article when filming is verified to have begun. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Aitias // discussion 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rezolution page deletion

My apologies if I am breaking rules, but I am totally new to Wiki. Please can the Rezolution game page be undeleted? This is an active game, it is still in production under Aberrant (rather than Aberrant Games), new figure releases came out in the past months and it has, in the past few years, been nominated for 5 awards. The game is still represented at conventions such as Gencon and Origins and a free on-line magazine is produced to support the game. Being new to Wiki and not realy having a full understanding of it, I was not aware that there was a debate for deletion or if there was anything that needed to be done to stop deletion.

Thanks for your time.

Regards

Tkenealy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkenealy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? :) Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Dear Aitias, i'm writing here, to show for you the article Kaycee Stroh, that recently had vandalism. Can you protect it against IPs?

Thanks. Vitorbraziledit (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not enough disruptive activity to justify a protection at this time. Also, it's better to use WP:RFPP to request the protection of a page. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll have a look at it. — Aitias // discussion 18:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Woollyback

Please re-instate. --Hauskalainen 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please voice your opinion here. — Aitias // discussion 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)