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

Warnings

Hi, happy holidays and such! I hope that they all went well for you. Mine were a little too good apparently, and I missed the addition of the UK rescue link to the Alaskan Malamute page from yet another IP for some time. I added the first spam warning to their talk page but am wondering about beefing it up to or also adding the next one. Also, should I added the second level warning to all the addresses it has come from so far? Thanks ≈Krasniy^t/_c 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only usually add warnings to Talk pages of users to whom I can attribute edits. The varied number of IP addresses all posting the same URL to the article does suggest a concerted effort by one party but there is no conclusive proof that they are all coming from the different IP addresses. I would only warn the IP editor that appears in the edit history of the article. We have to be careful blocking IP addresses for spamming, especially as they could be randomly reallocated by the ISP, as with AOL. It could be that this editor is aware of Wikipedia's policy about spamming and blocking, so is using an IP reallocation method to evade blocks. As we can't be sure of their originating IP address at the moment then we can't be sure that the warnings will reach the correct editor. If it does keep up then there may be a case for alerting the appropriate authorities at Tiscali UK about a spammer and providing the times, dates and IP addresses for them to check against their logs. To summarise, you can escalate the warnings as you see fit but I wouldn't warn editors to whom I cannot attribute edits.

Let me know if you have any other questions about other aspects of contributing to Wikipedia! Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paterson NJ

How are you? I have been contributing to the Paterson NJ article and have noticed a writer delete and add some inaccurate and simply made up information. I have attempted to contact him/her by posting some of my reasons for making some minor edits in the feedback space and i left him posts on the article's discussion pages. What other steps can i take? I have not yet seen a response and there is no way of knowing if the writer is aware of my comments? How can i find out his name so that i can leave him a note on his personal my talk? thank you --Javierbaires1 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thank you for adopting me

Erm, I haven't adopted you! Your userpage didn't include the adoption box and I haven't made an enquiry to you regarding adoption. If you do want to be adopted, check out WP:ADOPT and see if you like the idea. Follow the instructions on the page for requesting an adopter and follow it up with those who show an interest in taking you on. Regards, (aeropagitica) 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be sure that an editor will read a message sent to them, even if it is sent to their Talk page, although a yellow messagebox will appear on each page that they look at until they check their personal Talk page. To find out who has made a particular edit to an article, look at the history tab at the top of the page. This lists the edits to a page in chronological order, giving the editors' handle, time of the edit and the summary, if one was filled in. You can look at the difference before and after an edit by choosing two radio buttons on the left hand-side of the page and clicking the 'Compare selected versions' button at the top of the history page. This will give you a URL like this, which you can then use to show an editor what they have changed and then point out which changes you disagree with and why. (aeropagitica) 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, thanks for all your help. I saw something added to my text saying i wanted to be adopted and i misunderstood. --Javierbaires1 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Javierbaires1[reply]

Re: Adoption

Yes, I would like to be adopted. My main interests are video games, T.V. shows, and technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiimo (talk • contribs)

OK, you might find portals about your topics of interest at the list of portals; interested editors there should assist you with making useful contributions to their projects. Don't forget to sign your posts on editors' Talk pages with four tildes, like this ~~~~, as this is a great help in answering any questions that you might have! Let me know if you have any questions, by the way. A message on my Talk page is the best way of contacting me. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IM

If you do get an instant message program of some sort, I am on AIM. You can message my email ventric (at) gmail dot com and I'll add you. Ventric 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Shirahadasha

Per this; Shirahadasha expressed an interested in closing delete XfD debates (answer to Q1), but WP:DPR says different. So, your vote is incorrect (or at least the reason given is, you can oppose for any reason or none). (I'm bringing this up here because the last time I posted a question to one of your votes at RfA, you never replied. I presume you don't check back after voting.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She only says that she wants to do more work in AfD discussions and doesn't mention closing and deleting articles as per process. A non-admin editor can do more in XfD discussions without the power to delete articles - closing speedy keeps and exclusive keep discussions, finding and citing the relevant policies and guidelines, pointing out when speedy votes are inappropriate, such as copyvios more than 48 hours old. The list goes on but I don't need to multiply examples. I believe that my opinion is justified by the evidence supplied by the candidate. Your opinion may differ and I respect your right to hold it. RfA discussions are equivocal, some on basic issues of protocol and others on more complex issues of interpretation, justification for the use of the tools, etc. This is one of the latter cases. Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff explains your question. My opinion was given with the original answer, which was subsequently changed some hours after. The change has not been acknowledged by the applicant in the revised answer, something that I find surprising given that this affects the patterns of voting. (aeropagitica) 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, aeropagita. I did revise my answer to Q1 in response to feedback from others. I wish to use the additional tools available to admins to help Wikipedia by expanding my activities, including closing XfDs, acting on vandalism, enforcing arbitrations. I regret if this was not made sufficiently clear in my original answer to Q1. I very much appreciate your time and consideration. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see; makes sense then. I feel that it's not that easy to find AfDs to close if you only close speedy and uncontested keeps (but that's process creep and best ignored anyway). MfD is usually either a transparent delete consensus [user pages], or a controversial outcome, so not much to be done there. RfD, TfD, CfD and CfD/U could do with more eyes, I suppose, especially the two CfDs. The rest of the contributions you suggest are either the sort of pointless "inflate my Wikispace edit count" stuff that makes me squirm when I see them from borderline candidates at a 2nd RfA, or are contributions which anyone opining at XfD should make. After all, if you're not basing your opinion on policy and guidelines, there's only WP:ILIKEIT type arguments and the WP:IAR nuclear option left.

The question I asked earlier, which you missed, was this: are you applying the same guidelines at RfA today that you were when you accepted your nomination back in February? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Thanks, I think I've got it with the fair use and all now. Happy New Year to you too! :D Mrmoocow 09:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was wondering about when or when not you should link an article? For example, for an article about a dog breed, link to dog? Should an article about a specific book link to book? Etc, etc. Mrmoocow 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am not quite sure what you are getting at. Perhaps you mean categories rather than Wiki-links? Articles should be categorised appropriately, yes. This doesn't mean that every generic category such as 'Dogs' or 'Books' becomes top-loaded with every article that mentions either respective creature and object. Categories are hierarchical, so 'Books' can be broken down in to year of publication, genre, author, etc. This way, the categories are manageable and navigable with human intervention. If they were all top-loaded then they would be useless. Take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization and the pages that link from it, particularly the categorization FAQ. These should answer your questions. This can be a very academic topic! (aeropagitica) 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. Yours was one of the neutral votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block of 72.200.166.120

I think 24 hours is not enough. This man edits continuously for 3 days. He makes the most dangerous form of vandalism - minor edits that anti-vandalBot or common reviewer easily miss. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues then the blocks will increase in length. It is an IP address, so I am wary of indef-blocking the editor for fear of accidentally blocking legitimate editors as collateral damage. (aeropagitica) 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll keep watching him. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the trouble with IP editors. They are slippery customers! (aeropagitica) 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adoption

Thanks for the quick response! I've been a member of Wikipedia for a while but I haven't done anything significant yet. I'm particularly interested in A Series of Unfortunate Events. How do Wikiprojects get created? Rougeblossom 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject resources can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. You should make a proposal for a project to see if anyone is interested in your ideas before you go ahead. You will probably find experienced hands their ready to offer you assistance if your proposal is accepted. Remember to give sufficient detail about the scope and nature of the project. Someone may have already created one and be ready to welcome you aboard! Regards, (aeropagitica) 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Hi! I'm writing a work on Wikipedia and was wondering if I could interview you over IRC for it sometime in the next few days. -- Chris is me 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't use IRC, sorry. (aeropagitica) 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees76 continues to remove warnings from his talk page.

I have issued warning to a user on his talk page but he continues to remove them. Please monitor the situation here. Thanks. --Messenger2010 02:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]