(aeropagitica)

Joined 20 November 2004

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 28 March 2006 (Milt pupique). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 18 years ago by Stifle in topic Milt pupique
Archive
Archives

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page

Imaginary antecedent deletion

Hello. The deletion log says that you deleted imaginary antecedent on March 12. Did you see its previous article for deletion? The result of that discussion was no consensus. Was there any discussion about deleting the article this time around? I've been trying to find any discussion on deleting the article, but can't find one. How many times can deletion be debated or performed? Oneismany 16:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I found the discussion here. I would like to request a deletion review. I am sorry I didn't contribute to the March 7 discussion, but I was unaware of it because I did not know that the previous deletion discussion could be overruled without any notice. The article is already deleted, and this is the first I knew about it. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wish to submit the following considerations for the advocation of a deletion review. Firstly although the article does admittedly need to be cleaned up and peer-reviewed and provide better citations, it is arguably not 'original research'. The article cites fiction and philosophical essays as its sources and does not contribute new information from outside these sources. Secondly although the number of Google hits mentioned in the deletion discussion is low, some of those hits are articles in alternate reference materials which have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. At least one of them quotes an old version of the article, now without any reference to the updated version. Meanwhile, the attribution in these articles is lost because the attribution was only kept at the Wikipedia article. According to the GFDL, attributions and the history of changes to a text must be preserved. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I propose that the deletion be reviewed, and the article be replaced. With more work, I am sure this article can live up to Wikipedia standards. Oneismany 17:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your request for an undeletion review has been granted : Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Imaginary_antecedent. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

OneCone International

Hi. Just wondering why you deleted the OneCone International article? ZPMMaker 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide me with a link or some context, please? Regards,  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've found a link to the AfD : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OneCone_International. The article was deleted because the consensus was delete - the ten delete opinions expressed outweighed keep or comment opinions. If you had a personal stake in this article, it wasn't a personal decision. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  10:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK cool thanks. David P. a. Hunter 01:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC) - PS: my nickname has changed, but I am still 'ZPMMaker'.Reply

Cyber Nations

Hi aeropagitica. I nominated the article and am not an admin yet (did that surprise you?), so I cannot see the deleted versions - note that it was deleted in February. If it is basically the same content, then you, as an administrator (I voted for you) can speedy delete it for me, otherwise it will stand for 5 days before it gets pulled.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyber_Nations Previously deleted version AfD'ed on February 4. This version contains even less information than previous article, so CSD4 condition obtains. I'll be brave and tag as such now.  (aeropagitica)  07:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Thanks

You're welcome and thanks for the compliments. Now with 1800 pages on my watchlist, I expect a raise in my pay to keep reverting the vandalism to your page. Since I asked you that one simple deletion question, I'll always have your pages on my watchlist, so I'll always be there to revert the vandalism done to you. That's basically what I do now. Vandalism and spelling. Glad to help.

By the way, I've been getting extremely slow speeds on here today. Is it going fine for you, or are you also experiencing 3 minute page loads? tv316 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is significant lag here in the UK for me too. At the moment, pages are taking 60-90 seconds to load up. It must be slow somewhere in the chain near Florida, at a guess. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  21:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Maybe you can help

Okay, so what I am trying to do is archive very old discussion on the article National Security Archive. How do I do this? Is it possible to archive it like you would with a talk page? --Strothra 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can't find a reason why an article Talk page can't be archived at the moment. If I do, I will let you know. Instructions for archiving Talk pages can be found at Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've found Talk:Rajput as an example of an archived set of article Talk pages, so there is a precedent. Just in case you wanted to know! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wow, thanks for keeping my question in my mind. --Strothra 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Casandra Stark

I added some references to the article, I don't know if it's enough to change your vote. I have the book Deathtripping but haven't located it yet... lots of books, not so well organized. Esquizombi 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I have added my revised opinion to the article's AfD talk page, as requested. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I can't say it's of primary importance to me that it's kept, but I did recognize the name right away. Esquizombi 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gregory Gai Deletion

I wish to be a wikipedia user, that which is capable of editing with credibility and reliability, but you didn't like the page which was created as Gregory Gai for some reason, even though the information was cited and true. I realize that i didn't do enough to the originally-rough article, but i think it deserves another chance. Please review the deletion and reply. PioveNevica

Hello! First of all, please read the instruction at the top of my Talk page, which asks contributors to place their comments at the bottom rather than the top, so that they read in chronological order.
Secondly, before you decide to write a biographical article, please read the criteria for notability at WP:BIO. It is this page that informed the opinions of those who contributed to the AfD on March 22. I didn't delete your article as I pointed out at the time, as it had been deleted mid-process. The deletion log states that it has been deleted thirteen times by several editors and the AfD recommended speedy deletion, so I don't think that your chances of writing a credible biography of this individual are going to be high. I won't be recommending it for an undeletion review. If you want to develop articles to a high standard before submission, please create a Sandbox page for this purpose.
Lastly, sign your name with four consecutive tildes, like this but without the spaces : ~ ~ ~ ~  (aeropagitica)  06:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why delete Drox

Drox is not nonsense. It is a script for a movie in the future. I don't think its a bad script. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc85 (talkcontribs)

Read WP:NOT Wikipedia is not the place to publish your scripts. You can put them on to your own website. Read the link. When you leave messages on people's talk pages, sign them with four tildes all together, ~ ~ ~ ~. Remove the spaces first. It is also helpful to place a link to the article-in-question in your message, to prevent the recepient from having to search the main article space. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


I saw the Vid Mask

Why did you delete it. I saw it on TV and in the museam. It is a Russian celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc85 (talkcontribs)

Hello! Your article has been deleted three times as it is nonsense with non-encyclopædic content. Please do not abuse Wikipedia in this manner. Legitimate contributions are welcome. Spell-check your contributions in English before you post. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  13:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Olof Palme assassination

This information is already contained in Olof_Palme#Assassination, so I have tagged the article for deletion. Please read relevant articles before deciding to create a new one. The information may already be contained within WP. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear (aeropagitica), I am happy you read my article. I can fully understand your reaction against creating a new article on the topic, as there allready exists information on it in a container article. However, on the Olof Palme talk page, an idea on creating a separate article on the assassination was discussed. I therefore decided to create it, tagging it as a stub. My intention was that the new article step by step could be filled by those interested in it. Sorry for the inconvenience, I should have suggested the creation prior to creating it. Yours, Astor Piazzolla 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't forget that you can create and edit articles in the Sandbox before you publish them. If there is a substantial article in the Swedish Wikipedia available for translation, say that this is going ahead in your article's talk page. At the moment, there is no need to spur the subject off to a separate article until there is information with which it can be populated. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  14:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kingdom Hearts III

Kingdom Hearts III is listed on AfD. However, this article was previously listed and you closed it as a deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts III). The user who listed it this time linked to the old nomination so it is shown as closed on the AfD summary (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 25). I was wondering if you would care to look at it and see if it's speedable as reposted material? That would save having to fix the nomination... Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've taken a look at today's AfD nominations and I can't see the relisting of the previously-closed nomination. Perhaps another editor removed it in the interim? Regards,  (aeropagitica)  14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not today's, but yesterday's (25 March). Follow the link above and it's number 1.136 on the TOC. -- JLaTondre 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are quite right - my mistake in concentrating on too many things at once. I have tagged the article with {{db-repost}} and placed the AfD discussion link on its Talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Move mistake

Hello. I need some admin assistance. Thanks!

I need to delete the page (that I created) named Electra (Pleiad), and then move the Electra (pleiade) page to a new title, the same I need to delete: Electra (Pleiad)

I am cleaning up mythology pages, and creating some consistency (upon careful study of the Perseus encyclopedia) in the nomenclature of minor deities and whatnot. I was creating a Sterope (Pleiad) page and ended up stumbling upon Electra, so I thought I would fix both at the same time. Now I know how to move pages, but this one needs help.

I already moved all the links from Electra (pleiade) to Electra (Pleiad), using the "what links here" page.

Thanks! --gio 11:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

All done. Thanks for asking for my help, I'm happy to assist!.  (aeropagitica)  14:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perfect! Thank you so much. --gio 20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Milt pupique

Regarding the article Milt pupique, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "This article provides no meaningful content or history, and/or the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because patent nonsense refers to jumbled words or characters arbitrarily put together, which this page is not. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks!

Also, two other things. Please don't subst speedy deletion templates, and you're an admin, so I don't exactly get why you're tagging pages for speedy when you can just delete them yourself. Stifle 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply