User talk:(aeropagitica)/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:(aeropagitica). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Incumbent sig
Check out my planned sig for when I change my username at the end of the month (it's at the bottom). However, I don't think it will be much shorter than my current one. :( —It's The Cliff! 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- 193 characters in the new signature compared to 506 characters in your current signature makes the new version the preferred option. It will be better on Talk pages as there is less code to wade through in order to get to the comments and less load on the servers too. (aeropagitica) (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that this article redirects to Rearview_mirror#Augmentations_and_alternatives as the matter is discussed in the appropriate section. More details can be added there, if required. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are there any guidelines you can refer me to? I don't disagree with your suggestion, but it appears to me that whether something merits its own article is highly subjective and I feel somewhat lost on the topic, whether it's regarding this article or others. I feel there's enough interesting information about the subject to merit its own article, if for no other reason than that such information would be largely off-topic for an article about a rear view mirror. Reswobslc 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirect#What_do_we_use_redirects_for.3F: "Sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text." The articles discuss two methods of achieving the same objective, so to avoid replicating information in both or sending researchers to two pages to look at essentially the same article, one can redirect towards the other and all pertinent facts can be discussed without a researcher unknowingly missing something. (aeropagitica) (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- May I solicit your opinion as to whether the article still ought to be merged in light of the following?
- Although I'm sure your car probably has a usable rear-view mirror, big trucks and motorhomes (who are the biggest users of these) don't. The size of such vehicles and the cargo they carry moots the usefulness of a rear-view mirror, and in such a context, the idea of a backup camera being a "rear-view-mirror augmentation" starts to become nonsensical.
- I've added significantly more to the article since the proposed merge that is of low relevance to rear-view mirrors.
- Keep in mind I agree with the merge if that's the way it ought to be - my objective here is not to attempt to argue against one, but to better understand when a separate article is appropriate and when one is not. If you still feel it should be merged, let's merge it. Reswobslc 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info re climbing Thinredline 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This is mentioned in Friends#Running_gags already. The article isn't likely to turn in to anything more than a stub or to suffer from WP:CRUFT if all of the messages are listed on the page. Better to do something like that on a friends/joey website than an encyclopedia. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dude I was going to construct this like the simpsons couch gag. Rlk89 16:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted again. please do not recreate - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't delete any more without giving me a reason that gose against the previouse post. Why is it any different from the simpsons? Rlk89 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't, I will except that your are refuse to participate in discussion and recreate within the day. Rlk89 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Your message on my Talk page lacks civility but I will respond. Recreation of previously-deleted material is considered vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time. You have been given the reasons for the previous deletion - obscurity and WP:CRUFT. This material is more suitable on a Friends/Joey website than an encyclopedia. The difference between the the Magnadoodle and the Simpsons couch gags are that the Simpsons quotes, parodies and satirises many notable artistic, filmic, literary and televisual references in a complex postmodern and intertextual web of meanings and cultural allusions. The Magnadoodle references achieved nothing like this nor were they intended to. As such, they are non-encyclopedic while the Simpsons couch gags are. (aeropagitica) (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, discussion finished you are right. Rlk89 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My RfA thanks
|
Hello (aeropagitica)/Archive 8, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
Smile
Here something to make this line:
- )
appear on your face
M inun (Spiderman) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
It has actually been confirmed. It is a fact. Some candidates have been announced, and Blair has announced that he is going before the end of 2007. Abcdefghijklm 14:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case, you need to substantiate the claims made in the article with sources and references. This report on today's BBC News website; 'Blair defiant over departure date', seems to disagree with what you say. If you can't verify it yet, wait until the official annoucement before creating the article in order to avoid crystal ball deletions. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)#
Hi again, OK, say we don't go along the lines of Blair will go before the end of 2007; but we list the announced candidates for when Blair does resign (which will inevitably happen at some point). Do you think this would be any better/more suitable? Abcdefghijklm 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've hit the nail on the head: "which will inevitably happen at some point". Until there is a press conference and/or a press release stating that Blair is to stand down and that the position of Leader of the Labour Party is open for nominations, this is all pie-in-the-sky stuff. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we can't predict when this is going to happen so the page is redundant. David Cameron will step down from the Conservative Leader position at some point but we don't have a page on that issue yet. Until you have some documentary evidence to back up the claims of your article, the article should remain off the Wiki servers for the timebeing. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary; there have been no candidates who have declared there interest for the Conservative Leadership for when David Cameron resigns, or the Lib Dem leadership for when Ming resigns. However, there are two announced candidates for the Labour leadership, plus one more speculated candidate. Nevertheless, I will not recreate the page until an announcement has been made unless you change your mind. Abcdefghijklm 20:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support!
| Howdy, (aeropagitica). Thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) |
Hey, i nominated burning towel for {{db}}. Just a note: {{subst:testarticle-n}} is better than {{subst:test1-n}} for test articles because it's more specific. In fact, in this case, it's clear spam, so {{subst:spam1-n}} might be better too. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you - noted. (aeropagitica) (talk)
Admin coaching
Hi - thanks for saying hello again. No hurry - I have plenty to keep me busy. SP-KP 22:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I aplogize for the inconvineience of taking a wikibreak longer without notice. I was on vacation and got the dates mixed up for my vaction and when I got back! So anyway, I hope you wil enjoy coaching with me! However I have noticed SP-KP's has not really been talking about this coaching thing. The Gerg 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Help Me
I have a question, should stubs go before templates near the bottom of a page? Rlk89 16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I place category templates before stubs when cross-referencing a page. Doubtless there are counter-examples of mine but I prefer stubs last. When a page is expanded the stub will disappear but the categories will remain, so this will not disturb the layout of the categories. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Rlk89 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Nice meeting you. Please see this edit: [1]. Cheers. Please continue the good work of spotting useless pages. --Bhadani 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RfA!
|
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | |
| To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
- I really appreciate the support, aeropagitica! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
AFD
Hi! I've recently put the article Dub Piece up for deletion, on the grounds that it's non-notable, and most probably created by the same people who created the videos. I'd appreciate your vote on the matter, either way (of course), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub Piece. Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 03:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! (aeropagitica) (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since when did the coffee lounge become a serious place, its a place to chill out and have fun. Also another admin changed the joke (great touch), so this is a matter of opinion. Overall the coffee lounge is for joking and relaxing and i am complainging about the warning you gave me, i do not feel it was justified. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey there, I saw that you reverted my edits on the said page, and warned me using {{joke}}. I just wanted to question whether the warning was warranted, since the edit in question was in good faith, and most importantly, not to an actual article, but to the dumb coffee lounge of all pages! Also, the "new messages" bar is such a clichéd joke, that most people check the link before clicking on it. Those who fall for it can always log back in, and there's no harm done. I guess you should lighten up ;) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I will accept that there is a difference of opinion - you thought that the practical joke was funny, I did not. The coffee lounge is for fun and games - chess, hangman, etc. The practical joke does have its place and I have seen it multiple times on User pages. I was even fooled by it once or twice and laughed along too! The fun aspect of the practical joke is subjective, as indicated by this correspondance. What might be funny on a User page isn't so funny on a Project page. The {{joke}} template was the mildest thing that I could find. I didn't intend any offence by it, as you didn't intend any with the message bar. My mood is very light for the hottest day of the year! Everyone has an opinion as to what is and isn't funny, so there's no point in arguing about it. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just because your opinion was different from mine, doesn't mean you're gonna warn me against making "joke-like" edits, and use the Sandbox. Please don't take things so harshly; if you're removing the thing, please discuss it before, and there's no need to warn me. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
When I created the page Jez it wasn't an experiment, and I take it as in insult that you assumed it was. It would have been considerably more useful if you had given me some advice on how to improve it, rather than simply deleting it. --jazzle 09:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was marked as a {{db-nocontext}} speedy delete page by Gay Cdn: "It is a very short article providing little or no context." The article didn't stress why this nickname is notable enough to justify a page to itself when many others are entered on Nickname, as part of a larger article or simply not on Wikipedia at all as they are not encyclopedic. If you feel that you can write an encyclopedic entry on this nickname sufficient to warrant its retention, then please do so using a sandbox subpage of your userpages. Your emotional response suggests that you felt an ownership of the article stub. Please read WP:OWN for details. The page was deleted as part of a process and not out of any malicious intent on my part. If you want advice on how to improve a page, read the guidelines for creating a good article which can be found on the welcome salutation appended below this message. Don't be put off from editing as a result of one speedy deletion. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletion request
Hello, aero. I was archiving my talk page and accidentally left of the "90" in my username, resulting in this. Could you, perhaps, delete it for me? I moved it, and I'm sorry for my ignorance. But I make mistakes every now and then. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! I have deleted the redirect page, as you have requested. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I appreciate it strongly. Aaрон Кинни (t) 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for deleting that extra page (User:Aeon1006/cyclostar) out of my user space. Aeon Insane Ward 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Could I appeal the speedy deletion of this page? I'd argue that the band did (and still does) have notable and influential, if somewhat cult, status within the US hardcore scene. I appreciate this wouldn't be apparent from the stub I'd created - I was due to add substantially more content to, I hope, justify that, but got temporarily waylaid. Thanks --Malpertuis 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Create a sandbox as a user sub-page, enter all of the details that you have on the band in accordance with WP:Music criteria and then ask another editor to review the article before posting it to the main article space. If the band is notable and evidence is provided for this then the page shouldn't be deleted. The article may either stay and be expanded, deleted as {{db-repost}} or AfD'ed. If they have a cult following then they may be better off with a Myspace page. (aeropagitica) (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK - that's great. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. --Malpertuis 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
i created a page for this and you deleted it, why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtatour (talk • contribs)
- Firstly, sign your comments on Talk pages using four tildes, like this ~~~~. That way, other users know to whom they should reply. The page was marked for speedy deletion as it contained no context for the notability of the subject. In addition to saying that subject x exists, an article should also say why subject x is notable. Read Wikipedia:Notability and the pages that link from it in order to understand the concept. There are many television programmes produced in the UK, for and by the companies that make up and supply the ITV network. Not all of them are notable, just as most of the programmes produced in the rest of the world are not notable. If you have a reason for why your programme is notable, include it in the article in order to stop it from being deleted. You can develop your article in a user sub-page sandbox before placing it on the main articlespace if you don't have all of the information to hand immediately. (aeropagitica) (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Great sig
Just letting you know that I am impressed by your sig design and I will likely update minde to this, the design and effect are really impressive :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your kind words! I would advise that you don't copy my sig directly but use it as an inspiration for your own design. Several other people have used it as a basis for theirs, which is flattering. Please see Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Customizing_your_signature if you haven't already. Keep the code to a minimum and please don't directly copy either the colours or the layout! Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking about something like Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk. But it's late and I will think more in the morning, I would like to achieve contrast similar to yours.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you create a user sub-page for your experimentation and refer me to that, please? I don't want my Talk page to be cluttered with experiments! Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk)
- Did. And done :) Not my first draft, but wikisig has some issues with super and subscripts, so I had to abandon my verticla contrast plan go with colors. Once again, tnx for the inspiration :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus talk 16:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Quick Question
I noticed that you properly removed the vandal I reported here. I'm a little bit confused, though, because his contribs have disappeared. I could swear that this user made 5 or 6 edits with extremely abusive edit summaries. Is it possible that an admin hid his changes? Am I missing something here...?
Thanks and Regards, Alphachimp talk 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! I looked for the username and variations in spelling and layout but found nothing. Two things that I can think of to cause this; we both spelt the username incorrectly and missed it or a bureaucrat deleted the user account. My spelling may not be up to much - could you check the user account again, please? (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I got it. I've been having a lot of trouble reporting users with VP. His real name was Mr. Starchy did not create the sockpuppets!, but I removed the "s!" in my report (when I was removing an extra section of text added by VP.) Anyway, looks like we figured that out. Thanks for getting back to me. Regards, Alphachimp talk 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, already blocked earlier this morning, it seems. I have placed a {{sockblock}} on the userpage to make this clear. Regards, (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Misza13's pile!
 |
Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. |
|
warning templates
G'day aeropagitica,
um, are you sure you don't need to cut back on use of the test-n series of templates? I appreciate it's possible to get a bit narky at Pressure_Thirteen (talk · contribs) for mass-adding reporter articles, but at what point did test-n enter into things? Gah, those templates are every damn place now, aren't they? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! Do you mean that I should use the {{testarticle-n}} template or that I shouldn't mention each article that I have speedily deleted to that particular user? One warning per article would be excessive but I made one warning cover all of the articles. Perhaps it was the wrong warning? I may update my macros, as above. (aeropagitica) (talk)
Page Protection Tag
Hey, I noticed that you applied a protection tag to this page I speedied as a 3rd recreation, but you didn't actually protect the page. Figured I'd tell you. Alphachimp talk 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks, now done. (aeropagitica) (talk)