User talk:Aitias/archive 6

Happy Aitias/archive 6's Day!

User:Aitias/archive 6 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Aitias/archive 6's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Aitias/archive 6! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rlevse . It's greatly appreciated. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it. Don't let yourself get down by some people's opinion, you are a great admin and user! SoWhy 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the compliment, SoWhy . It's highly appreciated and I can just return it. Thanks again, — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Don't ya just love Grawp...! Thanks for the reverts. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) — Aitias // discussion 16:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your user page

Go ahead; it's not my idea after all. :) Congrats on getting your own day! Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Julian! :) — Aitias // discussion 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your user page layout is better now. The userboxes are showing up properly! Versus22 _talk 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! :) — Aitias // discussion 20:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mistake

Oops. Yeah that was my bad. I was placing archive templates to noms 30 days old and I got a bit carried away ;) Thanks for pointing that out.--TRUCO 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. :) — Aitias // discussion 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Axmann8

Commented. Black Kite 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Replied on Black Kite's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion "Nils Janson"

Regarding your deletion of Nils Janson. The deletion debate did not result in a delete as far as I can see. No consensus was reached even though it leaned towards keeping the article..? The criteria held never the less. Why was it deleted? Isn't there criteria for a reason? Please enlighten me. Ikterus (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Among those who opined there seems to be a consensus that the article in question does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) (or at least parts of it). Also, no one did opine that the article should be kept. Looks like a consensus for deletion. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the notion that the article did not meet the criteria? I submitted unquestionable evidence that criteria 12 in Wikipedia:Notability (music) was reached. See: Anyone who knows swedish could prove this. No where does it say that verification has to be in english, as noted in the discussion. There was NOT a consensus for deletion. In fact most people supported my claim that the article was valid, albeit no proof excisted in english. Please show me where you think that there was a consensus for deletion. Fact is that criteria 12 was met! No-one can question that... Best, Ikterus (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit -read posts by Phil Bridger and Neon White concerning swedish language and it's validity. I don't get the notion that either of them is promoting deletion of the page. Do you? Ikterus (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward elections

• Thanks for your vote, for or against, and your constructive comments. Apteva (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to see a group of editors I respect (ie, in case that's not clear, including you) arguing at your RfC. I was hoping I might help defuse the situation, but I'll butt out if you ask me to. Just blank this section and I'll leave well alone.

I'm hoping that the thing can be de-escalated by slicing through all the thrust and parry of the evidence (You say "X", but I say "Y" - IMHO it can't have any outcome other than more conflict) and cutting to the chase...

The desired outcomes state: "I'd like Aitias to chill out a bit and stop being so strict with granting rollback to editors, unnecessarily. I'd like him to stop with the sarcastic and aggressive comments to other editors, and perhaps take a break from the rollback page, because I'm concerned of ownership issues over it."

If you could agree to the following, I think the whole thing could be closed down sharpish:

• Sometimes I can be over-zealous in my language and interpretation of policy.
• I'm happy to apologise to anyone I've upset. It's never my intention to upset other editors.

+ one of the following:

• I'm happy to take a wikibreak from rollback page for a couple of weeks. When I come back, I'll initiate a discussion to find consensus on how we should all apply the policy.
• I'm reluctant to take a wikibreak from the rollback page, but I'm going to initiate a discussion to find consensus on how we should apply the policy and won't reject any applications that could be contentious for now, while we await for consensus to emerge.

What do you think? --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Replied on Dweller's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See this then. Sorry, not only did I hit WP:TLDR mode, it upset me to see editors I respect angry with one another. I do have strong opinions on the RfC/ArbCom processes - I think they make conflict more likely and the chance of a successful outcome less likely. --Dweller (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Replied on Dweller's talk page again. — Aitias // discussion 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

So explain to me why EACH pf the following pages still exist?

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwave - a page I based the WAVEPAD page on.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Edit - a shareware program
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIAS_Peak - which notes "this article is written like and advertisement" but has not been tagged for speedy deletion
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexiMusic_Wave_Editor - with links to it's home page and not much else
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAPER - with links to it's home page and not much else
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recorder

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckdad (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Those are arguments to delete other pages, not arguments for keeping whatever it is you'd like kept. NB Please also remain civil. I have removed your incivility. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Duckdad - this is very much a volunteer project, with 6,896,813 articles and only 847 administrators, not all of whom are active. A discussion of what we call "other stuff exists" is rarely useful when looking at deleted articles. Perhaps you can look at the links at the top of this page, or read WP:CSD for a discussion of some reasons why articles would be deleted. And, if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know.  Frank  |  talk  19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Block 70.137.151.133

You have blocked for 3RR. Take a close look: it is not 3RR but two reverts, then I stopped. This were 2 reverts of spam insertion by another editor. The previous reverts were false vandalism alarm, the reverter apologized to me after recognizing it were valid and tedious edits. You have not warned, but blocked without notice. Violation of policy. 70.137.150.111 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right. You did not violate the 3RR. But you have still violated WP:CIVILITY. Accordingly, I have reduced the block duration to 31 hours and blocked this IP for 48 hours due to block evasion. — Aitias // discussion 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Violating procedure

I believe you are violating procedure by giving extended blocks for incivility (using @$$hole once), without warning. I believe it has become a sport of overzealous vandal hunters to blindly revert IP edits. This is not to the procedures. IP edits are perfectly legitimate. In particular as I have done high quality edits, doing citecheck proofreading against medical and statistical references. I am not doing 100 edits per hour, like the vandal hunters. And when I am then reverted several times in a row in different articles, each time with perfectly fine edits and corrections from the reference, just because some vandal hunters revert every IP edit on a hunch without reading at a rate of 100 edits/hour, then you have to forgive, that I get angry about this kind of sabotage. Now give me a block for 96 hours, for block evasion. Is WP a kindergarten of teenies? As a retired man I have no patience with that kind of practice, and I feel my time wasted in improving your articles by tedious proof reading and database searches, when I am continuously harassed by vandal hunters. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if the issue gets a review. As far as I understand an extended block for one BADWORD without any discussion or warning is not justified. You could have well reminded me to be CIVIL. Escalating the matter by giving additional blocks for block evasion is not justified if I just report my grievance. Read the blocking policy yourself. Look at the edit history, I am doing best effort to improve articles. The initial 3rr complaint was unfounded. I am not disruptive. You escalate the matter. Bring it to some review board please. My 2 reverts were based on the assumption that somebody inserts spam for Mylan Inc., and I have given reasons for the 2 reverts. Reasons besides suspected spam were notability, relevance of a picture of generic tablets in the article, and I have said that. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please educate me in simple words how to file a formal grievance in this matter. I am tired of overly hasty interventions on a hunch and on a wrongful report as an IP vandal, with escalation by ever new invented reasons. A BADWORD slip doesn't even justify a 24 hours block.

Imagine police kicks your door in due to a wrongful report. You complain, then they say but yesterday you said BADWORD! You complain about that, now they say but you resisted arrest, and they beat your snout in and book you. How do you feel then? Are they nazis then? 70.137.146.36 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To make it short: We have a false accusation of edit warring for 2 reverts. My previous single BADWORD use was not with the complainant, but somebody else, and he apologized because he made a mistake. There was absolutely no reason to report or block me for vandalism or edit warring or 3rr after 2 well intended edits. The unrelated use of BADWORD doesn't justify a block either. So your block was unfounded. Evading an unfounded block to file a grievance is then no reason for additional block unless you believe that passive resistance against unconstitutional acts is illegal. Now don't find additional reasons. Revert the decision. I intend to file a grievance against the initial complainant for false vandalism report also. It is like in the lord of the flies. 70.137.146.36 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can find new reasons now? Maybe resisting and disrupting your "unlawful" actions? 70.137.146.36 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aitias seems to be offline or busy at the moment; I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:Appealing a block, which details how you can request a review if you think the block was unfair. I have to say that simply using the {{unblock}} template after you were initially blocked would generally have got you a faster and more effective response than repeatedly switching IP addresses to evade the block and complain. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to thank Mazca for the fast reply. I've been offline. Your behaviour on Temazepam was clearly leaning towards edit warring. Combined with the incivility it clearly constituted disruptive editing. Thus, the block was obviously justified. Also, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking (cf. Wikipedia:Blocking policy). That said, you may contest the block using the {{unblock}} template — as Mazca explained above. However I highly doubt someone is going to accept it, given your behaviour after the block — including calling me a nazi. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: [1]. — Aitias // discussion 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aitias. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Note: Replied at MBK004's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 25

I don't know how this happened but your edit here nuked the log. I've had it happen to be once so it's probably another Mr-zman script glitch. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. :( I'll fix that. Thanks for the message. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done ([2]). — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:FireArmsNoGood

Oh, silly me. I didn't even look at the talkpage history, so I missed the link to you-know-who. Well, at least I was able to block another of his spawn. Cheers —Travis^talk 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Natioansl

The concensus was to move the Toronto Nationals hockey team to Toronto Nationals (1970–1980) and the Toronto Nationals (MLL) team to Toronto Nationals. It appears that this is not what you did, could you please rectify this? DMighton (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. DMighton (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am still trying to fix my mistake. ;) I am afraid that it will still take some time. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I hope everything is okay now. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Continental Connection Flight 3407

Just wanted to let you know that I recreated this. I'm not sure why it was deleted, but it seems like a reasonable search term for the target - as noted in the requested move discussion, the media has tended to refer to the flight as "Continental Connection flight 3407" or even just "Continental 3407". If I'm missing something that means it's better off deleted, feel free to point it out to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's completely okay with me. :) — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

nervous system

Hi -- seeing as you gave a long semi to brain, and thereby lightened my load significantly, I wonder whether at your leisure you could take a look at nervous system? (This is the penalty for being useful.) Looie496 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. — Aitias // discussion 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Evelyn Stuart

I wish to notify you that I am about to return this article to Lord Evelyn Stuart. I am familiar with the conventions of naming in the British Peerage, and there is strong evidence to support Septentrionalis' position that the pre-move name for the article (the first move was made without consensus, FWIW) is the correct one; in addition, it is consistent with the vast majority of other Wikipedia articles on cognate subjects. If you feel that I am in the wrong, I would not object to you moving it back to "Evelyn Stuart" pro tempore, but I would ask that you summon some subject matter experts to generate a more thorough and well-researched consensus. 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one was not able to see a clear consensus in the relevant discussion. However I do not object your move anyway. — Aitias // discussion 12:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Continental Connection Flight 3407

Could you explain the rational for the premature move of this article during discussions before any consensus was established? --neon white talk 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was both opened and listed at WP:RM for at least 5 days and there was a clear consensus to move the page to Colgan Air Flight 3407. — Aitias // discussion 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed that discussion and i do not see a consenus there, it looks like an ongoing discussion with both points of view making making equally valid points with no resolution that i can see. Am i missing something? --neon white talk 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask because i'm confused as to why the article was changed from a title that followed convention on common names? This point seem to be the most important one made in the discussion and i cannot see this refuted anywhere. --neon white talk 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Closed" requested move

Hi Aitias. Please don't be rigid regarding the requested move discussion at Talk:Immunostimulant. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I edit conflicted with you on your close by exactly 2 minutes, adding diligently researched information that should have no affect on your close but may provide good information for any future move requests. As a fellow admin, I have closed hundreds of discussions at AfD, WP:RM where I am a regular, and elsewhere, and have had a few users edit conflict with me and never begrudged the addition of a post obviously made during the time period I was closing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop

You are deliberately goading RMHED, it is disgusting behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting personal attacks - nothing else. — Aitias // discussion 03:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You were goading with your post at ANI, and you were goading with your other posts on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not. — Aitias // discussion 03:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

well it looks like it from here, and certainly was not helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Reverting his harassment at my talk page, at his talk page, at WP:AN, at WP:AN/I or reverting his vandalism in the mainspace? — Aitias // discussion 03:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are too dim to understand what you were doing, I don't see any point in explaining it further, but I will try. You (by implication) asked for a longer block after his initial block. You made comments on his talk page which were unnecessary and did not seem to be directed at resolving the problems which led to the initial block but rather to be intended to inflame him further, and continued to do so after he was (as you wished) prevented from posting there. DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think good advice would be to stop weighing in for the time being. Let it all die. rootology (C)(T) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I go to bed now anyway. :) Good night. — Aitias // discussion 05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read all that mess. You know I am usually one that does think you are a good and capable admin, Aitias, so it's usually not my wish (nor any need) to lecture you, but the above comments are quite correct I'm afraid. I am not an admin as long as you are, but I learned one thing: If an user wants to annoy and insult you, just ignore it. Revert is silently, if needed, use protection, wait for it to die. But never ever complain on a public noticeboard. People will suddenly shift part of the blame on you for doing so, as you have seen here. It's stupid if they do but the whole drama just helps the one who tried to annoy you. The recent RFC that Majorly started in anger and this situation show that you need a "Who cares?"-attitude when people try to annoy you for your good work they don't agree with. If you cannot reason with them, ignore them. But please, don't let yourself by caught in such traps. It's not worth it at all. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RM

Normal practice is to simply delete these when they are resolved. The fact that they have disappeared from the listing is sufficient notice that they have been resolved. These are not archived in any manner, so there is no reason for marking them with the resolution. The page history is the only archive. Thanks for your help at WP:RM, though. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 12, Nils Janson

Hi! I realise that you're busy, but I noticed that you've been online but not answered my questions above, concerning the deletion of my article "Nils Janson".
Please look at the article and the link I refered to again. I think you'll find that it is valid and ought to be put back up. Best, Ikterus (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Aitias, but looking at the deletion discussion, I would support the conclusion that was reached - to delete the article - although weakly. I explicitly did not go look at the article, because I was merely evaluating whether or not consensus was reached, so I am not saying I think the article should or shouldn't be in the project. Just from the discussion, however, it seems that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. I agree with Phil that sources don't have to be in English, but we do need sources, and simply saying "there are sources in the Swedish article, so this one can stay" is not sufficient. If someone can competently translate the article and show that the subject is notable, then I don't think there would be any problem with the article existing. This is the same set of criteria that apply to all articles in the project. The problem is that the claim to notability appears weak in any language. Keep in mind that having an article in another project (Swedish Wikipedia in this case) is not at all a criterion for inclusion in this one; nor is it a reliable source.

Finally, I would add that if you feel the decision needs to be reviewed, you should check out deletion review.  Frank  |  talk  12:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frank. I am not in any way refering to the swedish wikipedia article. I can translate the source but since I wrote the article in the first place, I don't think that that would be advisable... The source is however the official website of swedish national radio, Sveriges Radio, and ought to be considered believable. I can also refer to the program schedule (spelling?) of the night in question, feb 6th, when the 120 min show was broadcast (take a look, click the show at 22.00 and you see that it features "Nils Janson Kvartett"...).

Probably the proper venue is WP:DRV, where I suspect there might be some discussion about criterion 12; was Janson the subject of that broadcast, or was he the performer? As for translating the source, do you mean an article on Swedish Wikipedia, or one of the published sources? If you wrote the Wikipedia article, I wouldn't see any issue with you translating it; if you wrote one of the external sources, I'm not sure that would be a problem either. In fact...you could be Nils Janson himself and even that wouldn't automatically be a problem if you kept in mind WP:COI. The real issue here is a determination of notability.  Frank  |  talk  12:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Aitias, I have a question about the NPP tool. I keep getting errors from it. An example is a return from server with an error code of 417. My cursor wants to stay in the "working" mode/condition. I'm able to use it for the most part, but didn't know if there were any tweaks I apply to make things work a little smoother. I'm running Vista 64, and I'm guessing the 64-bit is what's causing my problems. Any thoughts? — Ched (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Are you something like an AI avatar? Are you programmed in Prolog but your rule based processing has difficulties to decipher metaphoric language? 70.137.184.193 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)