Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:06, 10 June 2009

User talk:Aitias/archive 9/tph

Deletion of Jeffrey Brent Ball and Todd Ray Wilson

Hello Aitias,

I created these pages on 24 May and you deleted them on 4 June following a discussion leading to their deletion primarily on the basis of the One Event policy. I can see the sense in merging them into one article, such as "The assassinations of Elders Jeffrey Brent Ball and Todd Ray Wilson in La Paz, Bolivia on May 24, 1989," though that title seems a bit lengthy. You probably don't want to deal with the debate, so would you either restore the articles so I can continue working on them, or tell me to create a new article such as the one I suggested in accordance with the consensus of the discussion.

Thank you, Ryan Reeder Ryan Reeder (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for unblocking me. As it seems I have no right to revert anything, according to some in here, even if it is vandalism. Thanks, Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is such a thing as "no consensus"

FYI, per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Craig L. Russell (software architect): Three Keep votes to two Delete votes is not a consensus to Keep. Each side had arguments, and people argued against claims made by the other side. There was nothing like a consensus to keep. I wish people wouldn't be so quick to act like their own votes are some super consensus overruling what everyone else said. DreamGuy (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not count votes when closing deletion debates — we weigh arguments. In this particular case there clearly was a general consensus to keep the article. Though, if you feel that I have interpreted the consensus incorrectly you are free to request a review. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to Antandrus

Hi, I may have been a bit hasty but I blocked 166.129.189.164 following further vandalism after your 4im warning. If you are still on could you check what I did was correct as I am new at this. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TPS'er comment - looks fine to me. Anons harassing users shouldn't be given quarter. –xeno 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my book your block was not a hasty, but a good one. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I just thought I'd be safe and check as it was my first block. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) — Aitias // discussion 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. This particular kid has been harassing me for almost a year now. He's mad because I busted some sneaky vandalism he managed to keep in an article for more than a month -- and then I smoked out all the other sneaky crap he did. Sometimes you just gotta laugh ... I find it more amusing than anything else. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, when I see someone "undoing" an edit to restore harassment, I pretty much think an immediate block is in order (but starting with a 4im is appropriate as well, if you don't want to be ultra-rouge). It's clear what their intentions are. –xeno 22:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)