Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceranthor (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 11 July 2009 (→Whoops: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

User talk:74.94.154.29 - serial recidivist

• Look at:
• Admire persistence
• Block?

— Charles Stewart (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Aitias. Not only for your support in my RfA, but also for your assistance in keeping things calm and rational. Your help, support, faith, and trust in me is something I value greatly. Thank you! — Ched :  ?  21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) I'm glad you are an admin now. Congratulations! — Aitias // discussion 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000

I noticed that you commented on this editor's topic-banning by J.delanoy. You may wish to see what he's posted at WP:AN/I#Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Just to make this plain, I did at no time question J.delanoy's actions, I just asked out of curiosity (I am not familiar with this topic). Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Honduran problems

Shouldn't Honduras and Roberto Micheletti be semi-protected as well? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Please request page protections here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: socionics

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A *very* late follow-up to User:Animum/revdelete.js

I've updated the script to use the semi-new API interface for automatic actions. Though I never found out exactly what caused some of the errors you reported, I am strongly inclined to say that they have been fixed in this update. —Animum (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection deletion

I noticed that this article got deleted because it was proposed for 5 days without any objection (quite some time ago). I think that it should be restored so that the discussion can be reopened. Mythmon (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry, I did not know whether I should list that worry of mine at Incidents or the normal noticeboard, but thank you, I guess, for er, archiving it. ceranthor 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)