User talk:(aeropagitica)

This is the talk page for (aeropagitica)

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page.

Archives

Archives

November 2004 – March 2006 March – April 2006 April – May 2006 May – June 2006 June 1 - 10 2006 June 11 - 28 2006 June 28 - July 13 2006 July 14 - July 23 2006 July 23 - August 10 2006 August 10 - August 23 2006 August 23 - August 29 2006 August 30 - September 8 2006 September 8 - September 24 2006 September 25 - October 10 2006 October 10 - October 23 2006 October 23 - October 30 2006 October 30 - November 7 2006 November 8 - November 14 2006 November 14 - November 27 2006

---

Editor review request

Hello, I noticed you've participated in RfAs, and I'm trying to get some feedback on "my Editor Review" (which is sort of like a pre-RfA/overall performance opinion) from admins/editors with experience. I wouldn't normally solicit, but it appears Editor Review doesn't get nearly the attention RfA does (and understandably so). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading. --Bobak 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your answers to the questions are wordy but they don't actually say very much. Can you please provide diffs to examples of conflict and how you resolved it and pick out what you think are your best contributions to Wikipedia? I can start to form an opinion when I have some evidence to start my research. (aeropagitica) 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to answer your questions, if you require more please let me know. --Bobak 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could you check him? He vandalised few articles about Poland and one about Silesia. I think that he's next incarnation of Ojciec. Thx in advance, Necrokris 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan blatant vandal blocked

Quick work, thanks. KP Botany 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Christopher barrow

In regards to this user's contributions ([[1]]), I have placed db-nocontext tags on the two "worst case scenario" articles he created. I was wondering, though, what the appropriate warning tags are to place on his talk page. As you know, the db-nocontext tag does not generate a handy talk page warning. Your help is appreciated. ---Charles 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me links to the deleted articles, please? I can see the deleted content and let you know what to say to the editor. (aeropagitica) 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure how to go about doing that, now that they've been deleted. They'd not been deleted yet when I left the original message. I honestly do not know... ---Charles 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know the names of the articles-in-question, place them in your response in [[link format]] and they will appear red. I can see the history of the deleted articles from there. (aeropagitica) 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I can remember these correctly (he misspelled both titles, so that does not help): Worst case scenenio and Worst case scenareo 9/11. I think that was it, though I am less certain of the second one. ---Charles 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, I can see both articles now and they are both problematic. They are rhetorical school essays rather than encyclopedic content, probably because this user is twelve years old and doesn't know any better. I don't think that there are any templates that you can use to offer guidance to Christopher, so your advice will have to be crafted to his needs. I would comment on reading around the topic before starting articles. This is important because another editor may already have had the idea and it saves Christopher wasting time when he could contribute to something in existence. I would go on to mention the importance of correct spelling and grammar when writing articles. This can be corrected by writing articles offline and using a spell checker to make any corrections. He can also use an adult - parent, guardian, teacher, etc - to proof read the article to see if he can make it better before publishing.

As Christopher's maturity is such that he is making fundamental errors in concept, layout and articulation of his ideas, I would suggest that he request to be adopted by another user who can offer guidance in editing Wiki articles, rather than creating them from scratch. This would be a better approach than tagging all of his efforts and telling him that the articles have been deleted. I think that this approach would foster a positive attitude towards contributing, which is great from someone born in 1994! They could be a potential long-term contributor if handled in this manner. I would also look at things like categories of Wikipedians born around the same time as Christopher. Perhaps someone there would be willing to assist him, as they may have similar experiences? These are just ideas off the top of my head, feel free to ignore them and make your own ideas up! Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is both splendid and delightful! I can see that I came to the right person. I will follow your advice, and give the lad a talking-to. But, nicely. Thanks again. ---Charles 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Always glad to help! Best wishes and happy editing! (aeropagitica) 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Much thanks for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me (especially from such a long-time Wikipedian), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on my RfA, you beat the crowd. I have taken a few actions with my new mop[2], I look forward to feedback. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your congratulations and your support at my RfA. I've got a lot to learn, but your words of support mean a lot! Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools, and as a fellow administrator, would be much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator

I have applied to become an admin but no one has voted? Why is this? Edxx3 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your RfA? The reason that no one has voted is because you haven't transcluded it on to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. This is a list of your contributions to date:

User:Edxx3
Mainspace	4
User talk:	8
Wikipedia talk:	1
Wikipedia:	7
avg edits per article	2.50
earliest	12:43, 27 November 2006
number of unique articles	8
total	20

Taken from Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool at 22:05, November 30th 2006.

Do not attempt to transclude this RfA as it will fail. You only have twenty edits to this Wikipedia. Admins require 2-3000 edits spread across the main spaces. This gives an editor sufficient time and exposure to the community in order to build a reputation and friendships/interests in various projects. It also shows how well they would do if they were given the tools. New people have zero experience upon which the community can form an opinion, so the default would be to deny the tools. You will only be disappointed if you do this.

What I would do instead would be to join Wikipedia:Esperanza and get to know the regulars there. I would also ask to be adopted by another more experienced editor who can show you the ropes around here. The project is about building an encyclopedia, so study how this is done - finding references in reliable sources and adding them to articles; creating requested articles, etc. When you become more experienced, you can learn to fight vandalism by patrolling the new and recent changes pages and tagging articles and warning editors appropriately. You can also bring persistent vandals to the administrators' intervention noticeboard. After six months' hard effort, go for an editor review to see how you are getting on. You can use this as a basis for improving yourself to get ready for your RfA. You can be coached on this by Esperanza. Do these things in this order and you will be a fine candidate in six to eight months' time. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights and advice. Edxx3 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Adoptme?

I can't figure out how to become in the adoptme program even though I clicked on the link you gave me above. Please clarify. Edxx3 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at your userpage then you will see that the userbox for a request for adoption has now been placed there, so that means that you figured out the process correctly - well done! Someone will be along in a while to adopt you and answer any questions that you have about Wikipedia. Good luck! (aeropagitica) 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I been adopted!

I was adopted by a new-ish editor named daniel olsen who passed with 44/0/0 Edxx3 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for voting on my administrator tryout and telling me the truth.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rat235478683 (talk • contribs) --

Your block of User:Kungfujesus

Hey, I just saw your block of User:Kungfujesus for username because I was looking at the same person (and report on AIV apparantly). I don't think a block is needed in this situation, as this user's only edits have been to his/her high school's article. I don't think that this person has the intention of impersonating Kungfuadam. What do you think? --Zsinj^Talk 17:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at WP:USERNAME you will see that one of the reasons for indef-blocking a username is the use of religious figures. The thought of an impersonation hadn't occurred to me. (aeropagitica) 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gnr8675 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thank you for blocking User:Gnr8675 contribs (talk). However, this user is a vandalism only account. If you don't block it indefinitely, we or somebody else will have to clean up and ultimately block it indefinitely. Hu 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A fair point; on closer inspection, I see that all of their edits occurred today and that they are all disruptive in one way or another, so I have increased the block to indefinite. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Captions:How?

I've got a simple Question: how can I put a caption under a picture?Libertyville 17:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The format for an image with a caption is [[Image:200508-DSCN0310.JPG|thumb|right|250px|A caption describing the above photograph.]]. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Images. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA: Khukri

Just a quick note to say thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It became clear very quickly that my editing background was going to detrimental to my nomination. Having seen other recent RfA's fail once one or two admins opposed and others just piled on the vote, I decided it would save the ignominy if I withdrew my nomination. I don't intend to change the work I do as it's what I enjoy, so it'll be unlikely I'll apply again. Anyway thanks again for taking the time to review my nomination and giving your support. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please delete my user pages.

I have decided to leave Wikipedia for now. I would be thankful if you could delete my user pages for me. Memmke 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thanks for supporting me with my RfA and the note you left for me. I've got lots of things to read up on before I try my shiny new mop. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra optional RFA questions

Hello. No problem, I will answer those and expand the answers I have already given to the standard questions as soon as possible. Thank you for taking an interest in my nomination. Wikiwoohoo 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have answered your additional question and those that have been asked by other users. Thanks again for taking such an interest. Wikiwoohoo 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409

Hehe, I wouldn't have been bold, but then I remember you closed someone's RfA earlier last week. I went to that RfA and saw what you said, just to make sure I didn't screw anything up. But it definitely looked like sockpuppetry, so I went ahead and closed the RfA. Thanks. Nishkid64 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Dariosanchez15

Hey, there; looking into this user's unblock request. Would you be wiling to consider decreasing the duration, or unblocking on the condition they avoid that sort of behavior in the future? I'm kind've thinking this one looks more "hapless newcomer" than "malicious vandal," (though sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, in the long run, heh). Just looking for your input or thoughts. Thanks. Luna Santin 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock on the basis that this editor is watched for a while, the reason being that I have unblocked in the past and the editor has turned out to be a vandal. (aeropagitica) 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll bookmark their contribs and check back every so often. Thanks! Luna Santin 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

An idea

Hey (aeropagitica) I had an idea I think we should get rid the users that don't have accounts you know ip usrs. Because I was looking at the Recent changes page and it looked like most of the ip users are vandals. So if we get rid of them we will have less vandals do you think thats a good idea? --Pediaguy16 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it that this is a joke, yes? If you block all anonymous IP editors, how would anyone ever be able to even read the articles, let alone edit them - or even sign up for a user account? Plenty of vandals sign up for user accounts that they can then abandon when blocked, so this approach solves nothing. This is the encyclopedia that "... anyone can edit", as it says on the front page. Put some more thought in to your comments before you make them - this appears to be a troll and a few of those could have you blocked if your correspondents decide to interpret them in a negative light. (aeropagitica) 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine all I give you is a little idea AND YOU COME BACK YELLING IN MY FACE you know what fine have it your way just leave me alone BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Pediaguy16 03:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ollie Jones (actor)

Since you just deleted this one, want to look at Skream? Looks to me like the same guy, different focus. Either that or this author knows a lot of people named Ollie Jones. Fan-1967 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at that one and it does look suspicious, considering the source and the redirect. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cesar vega

why is the article i was working on deleted??? i was using another persons wikipage as only the template!??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjuric007 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, as this helps editors to respond to your questions. Secondly, please place your comments in-context with a title and preferably a link to the article-in-question. Thirdly, if you wish to develop articles, you can use a user sub-page for experimentation and copy editing. A straight copy of an article in the article space with merely the name changed appears as vandalism and will be treated as such - speedily deleted. You article was a direct lift from Lloyd Bentsen Please use the Help Desk if you have any questions about editing. (aeropagitica) 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenbank Halls

Kindly DO NOT delete my work - this was a work in progress which I was about to add additional historical content to - which would have explained it's notability. THANK YOU. How rude... Steve-Ho 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil in your interactions with editors. The speedy deletion process is not rude and all articles are subject to review from the moment of their creation. You can develop articles in a user sub-page without fear of deletion, allowing you time to add sources and references before publication. Halls of Residence are rarely notable, as evinced in Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas; the article contained no claims as-to notability, sources or references and was deleted for these reasons. (aeropagitica) 23:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess - but I also think that at the end of the day you are being premature. I have been editing wikipedia for 18 months now and I haven't had that type of response. Given the dodgy edits and vandalism I regularly clean up, i do worry when people click delete that quickly when there is so much content that does really need sorting out Steve-Ho 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you understand about sandboxes and providing reliable sources and verifiable information for articles? Excellent! If it is a notable piece of architecture - listed? Award winning? Develop the article with these sources at the forefront before publication. The article will then have all of its claims of notability presented and speedy deletion will not be an issue. I can get you a copy of the text if you require it. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are ok, I have it as a txt document - and I can return at some point with the fully finished article, all referenced up. Sorry for snapping - long day - time for bed and a chance to recharge. Cheers Steve-Ho 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries - we've all been there before! Goodnight! (aeropagitica) 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blake Wampler

Thanks for removing. Next time please check history before accusing. Akihabara 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no accusation! I asked a question based upon the edit summary which seemed unusual, creating a page pre-set up for deletion. (aeropagitica) 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't create the page, as you would know had you looked properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akihabara (talk • contribs)

Ian Withey

Hey why do you have do be so unreasonable you guys act like robots. Anyway please keep the Ian Withey article because i worked so hard to make it and plus i think you could show some more respect towards Ian Withey. ps block me if you want to but that just makes things worst and remember i will always be on step ahead of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian 101 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your Talk page comments with four tildes, ~~~~, as it makes it easier for editors to respond. Secondly, the WP:BIO guidelines are clear when it comes to notability, so speedy deletion is an option. Thirdly, your repeated recreation of the article is vandalism and you have been warned about this on numerous occasions. Fourthly, your last comment can be considered a threat to keep on vandalising in spite of being asked not to, so this response constitutes a final warning for you. You will be blocked again if you vandalise Wikipedia in the future. (aeropagitica) 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all i cant understand your coded format so next time be more clearer. One more thing do you get paid becuase you do a pretty good job of stopping vandalism. ps Wikipedia sucks dick balls and are a bunch of gay cock suckersBenjamin Padgett 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:WPNN

Could you check this WikiProject out and tell me what needs to be added? Obviously, a lot of things need to be added before it can become active, but can you tell me specifically which? Thank you. Diez2 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

SPEEDY of Tom Radigan

An AfD was started for that page before you speedy-nuked it. Could you close its AfD please? DMacks 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Radigan - looks like it was reposted inbetween times. Now closed and deleted again. (aeropagitica) 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that mess. DMacks 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi there: I do not want to criticise, and i am fully aware that you were enthusiastic in your support in my recent failed RfA. But tonight, on three occasions, I have tagged articles for deletion, gone to the editors talk pages to explain why, and found that i have an edit conflict with your good self. Except for the most blatant vandalism edits - e.g. my sister f***ks the whole street while shooting dope - or near equivalent, I always put a message into the editors talk box. Trust me, I'm a doctor!--Anthony.bradbury 23:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As do I, which is why the edit conflict occurs. We're both on new page patrol, which is fine. You can tag and warn, which is due process and I can speedily delete and warn/report, which is also due process. I don't necessarily have to tag an article and wait for an admin patrolling WP:CSD to perform the deletion. Speedy deletion candidates can be deleted without a prolonged debate. Plenty of editors don't bother with the {{nn-warn}} tags, so I am glad that you do. (aeropagitica) 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not criticising. Just saying that if I tag them I will warn them, so if you find an article that I have tagged you can be certain that I will warn them, and you need not do so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - if only other editors were so conscientious in their patrolling! I do so because the Talk pages are red links and letting vandalism go by without acknowledgement benefits no one. Tonight's edit conflicts probably occurred as we were both patrolling the same area of the new articles list. I'm off to bed now, so the matter ends here. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes.--Anthony.bradbury 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

172.163.33.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Hi. I'm sorry about that. When I started doing that, he was not blocked. The block must have taken place while I was writing it. Anyways, I was interested in taking a more involved role with vandalism. Do you have any suggestions for me? --Riley 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get more involved in preventing vandalism, take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism for information. You can also patrol the new pages and recent changes pages. The policy for speedy deletions will give you information about tagging articles and repeat offenders can be warned with vandalism messages. People who vandalise page the fourth warning can be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for blocking. (aeropagitica) 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Buffy layer redir Buffy coat

Damn, damn, damndamndamn :-) Tonywalton  | Talk 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, as the philosopher Homer put it; "D'oh!" - Simpson, that is! (aeropagitica) 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The way this philosopher puts it is "Pah! I'm off to the pub". Cheers mate, Tonywalton  | Talk 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That's what she said

Hello friend. My intention was not to vandalise anything, as I'm sure, based on the impersonal nature of your message you were already aware of albeit unconcerned with. Furthermore, in my defense, as I had posted in the discussion area of the article (apparently as it was being "speedily deleted") I was unable to locate anywhere on the Wikipedia anything even warning me not to (re)create an entry for "That's what she said." In addition, allow me to appeal for a further review of "That's what she said," as I'm confident reflection upon it as a cultural-artifact (which is what my entry was -- NOT a celebration of the "humor" behind it) would result in the realisation that the place it currently holds is no different from the "Who's on first?" or "In Soviet Union TV watches YOU!" of previous generations.

So, hopefully I have demonstrated to you not only my earnest desire to give Wikipedia the respect it deserves, but have presented a case in favor of not letting the book on "That's what she said" be forever closed with "Delete cuz that's what she said" (I like the way you guys work). Be well, friend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Opiumbrella (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Firstly, please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~, as this allows editors to respond to Talk page enquiries without having to go in to the edit history of the page. Secondly, if you have a business case for the restoration of a deleted article, please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than to an admins' Talk page, as this was deleted after an open discussion and it will take the consensus of another open discussion in order to restore it. Regards, (aeropagitica) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy of MATSES

An AfD was started for that page before you speedy-nuked it. Could you delete its AfD please? The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MATSES.

Please note that Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for those who want to harass indigenous people or their organizations. Several WP editors A. B. and Descendall created open debates all over WP in an effort to question my notability, my ethnicity, and the notability of my indigenous organization and publicly defame me and my organization. Descendall openly questioned my ethnicity and the ethnicity of the president of MATSES, the indigenous organization I work for. Racist comments such as these are way out of line. Moondyne and A. B. even stated that my organization could be a "hoax" or "scam." Then Descendall and [User:Moondyne|Moondyne]] deleted my comments and responses to their defamation and racist comments and continually revert the MATSES AfD to the way they want it. I never wanted a public debate. I emailed A. B. several times to have the article in question MATSES deleted before it was nominated for deletion and the public slander started on that AfD page. I speedy deleted the article to prevent WP from being a forum to defame myself and my indigenous organization, but to no end. Now two editors Descendall and Moondyne continually revert the deletion page to the way they want it by deleting some of my comments and state that no changes can be made. This is outrageous that they believe they can use WP to defame indigenous people and their organization and that nothing can be done to stop them. This deletion page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MATSES), needs to be deleted together with their defamation of MATSES. It has nothing to do with the speedy deletion and serves no purpose other than to publicly defame an indigenous organization. Please delete this deletion page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MATSES) and end this harassment by Descendall and [User:Moondyne|Moondyne]]. Matses 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks Matses 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't speedily delete the article, that was done by Geogre. I merely closed the still-open AfD discussion. (aeropagitica) 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence in the form of diffs for the accusations that you are levelling at the above editors. Diffs are available from the history tab of an article or Talk page. Click on the radio button of the comment-in-question and the preceding/following comment before choosing 'Compare selected versions'. The URL then becomes a link to the differences in the page between the two edits. If you can gather sufficient evidence then you may make a case for your position at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. (aeropagitica) 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone

Can you take a look at this? I am very concerned about this AfD -- I think it's a mistake to proceed now and is only going to further aggravate folks after the whole MATSES AfD contretemps. You're a neutral, third party admin -- can you maybe step in as a grown-up and help us squabbling kids out? I'm concerned I'm no longer totally objective and even more concerned that some of the other parties may be even less objective. Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 04:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the AfD nomination. Articles can be proposed for deletion at any time. There is no safe time for an article; it is either about a notable subject and has appropriate reliable sources that conforms to policies and guidelines or it doesn't. There's no requirement for a speedy keep, so the only way to close it early would be to get the nominator to withdraw it. (aeropagitica) 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A Little Mess That I Had Not Noticed Until Now

A week or two ago a user User:IBitOfBear was reporting a small dispute he had with me here: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/. Apparently neither of us noticed that it wasn't the page to report cases and it has thus far gone unnoticed. The situation, I believe, has been resolved (I apologized and referred him to Elaragirl whose edit summary I misinterpreted in the first place. That aside, could you revert and move it to an appropriate page (or even scrap?) I would revert myself but since I was a part of it, I probably shouldn't. -WarthogDemon 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, a simple matter of reverting to a previous edit using the edit history. There's nothing wrong with cleaning up your own honest mistakes but thanks for taking the time to check with me - or any other admin, come to that! Regards, (aeropagitica) 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crawfordknights

I have noticed that you have closed this RfA attempt early. However, it says it was closed on the 10th December, when it is the 9th today. Could you please clarify this? -- Casmith 789 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, now corrected. Thanks for picking that one up for me! (aeropagitica) 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock to block

Would you indef. Eclipse0468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? Ordinarily I'd ask User:Pschemp to do so as she's a bit more familiar with this user's pattern of behavior but I've been keeping her busy. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, done and tagged as a sock. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (aeropagitica). Just to bring you up to speed: this user has been defiantly evading a permanent block that was imposed upon him in two separate cases. The first as User:Maior and the second as User:Mactabbed. I've taken to being a bit more proactive at encouraging this user to leave and so it is not too surprising to see the attacks he's engaging in. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Lynn Harless

There's no inconsistency, aero. I did speedily keep the article, but after that, the article's creator and main editor told me he'd like to see the article deleted after all. I advised him to place {{db-author}} on it, he did, and then I deleted it. I know it looks odd, but this way, the deletion was done correctly and in good faith. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:209.212.22.37

It looks like the user needs another wikibreak. Please review the anon's contributions from today. I would prefer that you do not leave me a message either way. Thanks! Royalbroil ^T : C 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that my referring to Mark's book and page of his book for referencing is vandalizing? How? It's Mark's page on him and the book was written by him and I know him very well and I am not vandalising anything. I might not understand all of the programming of things in texting but I'm trying. I do know the current version is false and they are even asking for citations on his supposed quotes, those should not be in this text if they cannot be cited, yet mine keeps being deleted and I can verify all of it. I even put in the case number of Mark's appealed Perjury charge and it was deleted too but yet you say it has to be sourced. I sourced it to his case number that was filed and final judgement issued on October 2, 1998, but it was deleted. There is more coming on this in the next six months as we are working on some things concerning it currently with the Gov. I do not understand but we are going to talk to an attorney about how to make sure the verifiable facts are put in. The text is so slanted and full of inflamable statements, especially the quotes. They are put in there to incite anger towards Mark and that is unfair. I'm sincerely not trying to vandalize Mark's page, quite the contrary, I'm trying to put in the truth and no one seems to want it. I hope this issue is resolved to everyones liking but I must insist that the truth be spoken or we will issue some kind of public statement that it is false. Thank you Sunnytwoyou