User talk:Aitias/archive 3: Difference between revisions

User talk:Aitias/archive 3/tph

Please restore the article Vino (Software).Omegamormegil (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that article has never existed. Thus, I can not restore it. — Aitias // discussion 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the following article restored

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inheritors_(1980_film)

Respectfully (Jeremy Brosnahan 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

The article was taken to AfD and other users voted it to be deleted. Versus22 _talk 04:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please restore the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.149.39 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Versus22 explained already, a deletion debate has taken place. The result of this debate was a clear consensus to delete the page. Thus, I can't see a reason for restoring it. — Aitias // discussion 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not given opportunity to respond I was not not informed of the proceedings, as author I feel not all side were represented in the so called debate. I would be willing to state my case(s) if the article were restored and AfD procedure took place again. The article was small I don't understand why it was removed, their is now a dead link in another article of the small organization whom produced the film. (Jeremy Brosnahan 06:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

If you wish the deletion to be reviewed, you are free to go to WP:DRV. However, I think the result of the debate was blatantly obvious. Also, you may wish to read WP:NOTABILITY. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am back from my one week block and very happy to be back.

Following the message you gave me regarding my block, I am starting to understand that the biggest issue is not 3RR, but edit warring..

I would like to draw your attention to the recent edits of Caspian Blue, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseon_Dynasty&action=history

in which he does not violate 3RR, but he makes 3 reverts (due to content dispute, not as he claims in the majority of his revert edit summaries reverting vandalism) in the space of less than one hour - and then stops, to me this is gaming and edit warring. I am sure he thought his edits were right, you may or may not agree with his opinion, but thinking you are right is no excuse for this - I thought I was right with my edits but I was shown the error of my ways.

Considering that he was lucky not to get blocked at the same time as I did, should have shown him that this style of editing is not acceptable - however this does not seem to be the case, and as he has a similar block history to myself I think these actions deserve a block of a similar period to mine.

The reason I am telling you and not just making a report is that you are familiar with the editor in question and perhaps more qualified to take action than an editor who has no knowledge of the above editor.

thanks

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see consensus for User:ADKTE's changes. Also, unless I miss something, User:Caspian blue has just done 2 reverts. Taking all this into account, I can not see edit warring here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify things, if an editor reverts an edit that does not have consensus, is it counted as a revert as far as 3RR and edit warring is concerned? My understand was that unless an editor was reverting blatant vandalism, or an edit that was in violation of BLP then no matter if the revert was made in good faith (restoring consensus etc) then there are no exceptions in relation to the 3RR and edit warring rules. In fact I can think of many situations when good faith reverts have resulted in blocks, no matter what consensus was in place. But feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, I would like to know exactly where I stand in regards to 3RR and edit warring, as I don't wish to be blocked again. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Wikipedia:Edit war provides a quite good general definition. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. In order to determine whether this applies administrators have to use their judgement. Also, they have several measures to determine if one was edit warring. The most common one is the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. However, as explained above, the essential question is whether one did use edits (reverts) to win a content dispute. In your case at Lee Myung-bak for example this applied blatantly. — Aitias // discussion 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sennen goroshi's usual stalking and harassment habit seem to be resumed as I have predicted earlier. I somewhat symhasized his block again , but his retaliation here just reaffirms his intention. The general consensus at WP:BRD has criticized his intention and labeled his edits for inserting it as disruptive. As for Joseon Dynasty, I woud suggest him to check my edits on the articles before making such false accusation again. I did not make even third reverts on that article and took it to its talk page. I have not reverted more than 2 times in 24 hours for over months unlike Sennen goroshi. Besides, the seemingly newbie violated 3RR "twice" regardless of my suggestion and warning to him. I did not even report his violation from my good faith just like Sennen goroshi's 3RR vioation at Lee Myung-bak. In fact, he vioated 3RR so he earned the block. At that time, I did not report him to AN3 nor to ANI from good faith, but he did not seem to realize your fault. I bring diffs for the evidence on his 3RR vioation.

• 1st revert 2008-12-31T16:51:59
• 2nd revert 2009-01-01T06:03:25
• 3rd revert 2009-01-01T10:00:51
• 4th revert 2009-01-01T10:56:13

Sennen may argue that the fourth revert is not a revert, but the birth place information in the intro formerly existed[1][2]. When Sennen goroshi followed me and supported indef.bocked sockpuppeter, Yuan.C.Lee (talk · contribs) to attack me[3], the artice had "that info" and he clearly particiated in the discussion at the talk. Besides, he reverted 3 times triple at the article regardless of the existent consensus and Blp vioation. I think my good faith on him is really dried up.

Aitias, your blocking him was warrnated because Sennen goroshi violated 3RR, but his message here is another gaming the Wiki system. Could you suggest any solution for me to deal with his constant baiting? Thanks.--Caspian blue 08:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, let me address a couple of the points brought up by Caspian Blue - well yes, it seems that his place of birth has previously been stated in 2007 !! I am sorry, but I not responsible for duplicated material that existed on an article in 2007. On the subject of being being reported for 3RR/edit warring on that article, I have already been blocked for that - I am not sure what Caspian Blue is suggesting, Caspian would you like me to be blocked twice for the same edits? Me reporting you is not gaming, I made the report because you were in my opinion edit warring - nothing more, nothing less. Also I am curious as to why he is bringing up "insults" made in 2007 - that would seem to be a little stale. This is getting annoying, if I ever comment on Caspian's actions, I am accused of baiting and gaming, which is not the case, I am merely reporting an editor who I consider to be highly disruptive, the previous comment would seem to be supported by the amount of antagonism and ANI reports that are connected with him - we both have a poor block record, the main difference between the two of us, is that I do not try to paint myself as some poor victim, stating that every dispute is someone elses fault. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just randomly picked the one diff, but the article in 2008 had the information that you inserted.[4] You just earned the block, so do not try to frame me again. Not ony that, you numerously reverted multiple artices just one step ahead 3RR vioation at that time you were blocked. Since you've blocked chronically per a month for what you've done, including your long-term harassment and gaming, your vent here sounds really something. Many people have said to you "how could this disrutive person be allowed to be here so far?", so I kindly refuse to be bundled with you. More funnily, you have always supported sockueters (all are later indef blocked) and even beg them to send you emails just right after I visit or take with them for their edits. Most of ANI regarding me are such "sockueters"'s retaliation as admins said so. However, the "first" ANI reorts on you was filed for your outing and harassment in your first momth. It is so regretful that you have not been changed a bit. Perhaps, you need to have more time to reflect on your behaviors. Cheers!--Caspian blue 12:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have brought this to AN. — Aitias // discussion 13:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias, I would appreciate it if you could clarify what exactly is going on? Why is this on ANI? Are you considering blocking me for 3RR for the same edits that you blocked me for edit-warring? The motivation behind Caspian Blue providing these diffs just after I requested you take action against him would seem to be quite clear, and the idea of reporting someone for 3RR for edits they have been blocked for seem about as close to gaming as it gets. But then again I might have the wrong end of the stick, so if you could spell this out for me, I would be very happy. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, of course I am not considering blocking you for the edit warring on Lee Myung-bak again — not at all. However, as I understand Caspian blue, he considers your above message (User_talk:Aitias#edit_wars_-_blocking_without_violating_3rr_etc) to be harassing him. As I am not sure what action to take, I brought it to AN (not to ANI) in order to get some more input. — Aitias // discussion 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha good..I had visions of being blocked for the same edits again, that would have sucked. And I stand by my suggestion that he was edit-warring - and I certainly don't consider reporting someone's actions to be harassment, if I wanted to harass him I would be a little more imaginative than suggesting he is blocked for a while - I however have never stooped low enough to do anything other than edit wikipedia and report people for what I consider to be breaches of wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of harassment I might suggest you check Caspian Blue's history as see how many times he has reported me, templated me and accused me of vandalism, POV, incivility etc on my talk page - and also seeing as I am the one supposedly harassing him, how did he come to be at this talk page today? I didn't report him to ANI - I certainly didn't inform him that I left a message on your talk page, so despite him saying that I am the one harassing him, he seems to be taking a lot of interest in my edits. To be honest for want of another phrase I am pissed off, I have no problem dealing with trolls, vandals and those who come to wikipedia with an agenda - they are usually quite blatant and easily dealt with - I do however have a problem with someone having a lengthy block history and obvious political agenda coming here and playing the victim, every single edit I have made is seen as being pro-Japanese, anti-Korean, POV, vandalism, disruptive and taken very personally - I reported him for something, but in his eyes that is me harassing him? The whole situation stinks. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this discussion as delete, but the article was moved, and you actually deleted only the Redirect. Mayalld (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Deleted the article as well. — Aitias // discussion 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) — Aitias // discussion 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a spate of AfD closures after 1-2 days today, cf the stated "usually minimum of 5 days" standard. The first day of discussion of them did seem heavily towards delete in the cases I spot-checked, but that's just the first day, and happens to have been entirely weekend-time--not sure it's a representative sample of the community's thought. The case that tripped my watchlist was Little brown fucking machine, closed after two days. Just a week ago, the article had its PROD declined and nobody even bothered to alert the decliner that an AfD had been started or give anyone a chance to find the previous talk-page discussion about quality of the refs/notability of usage. DMacks (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says “Articles listed here are debated for up to five days” at WP:AFD and not “minimum of 5 days”. I do just close AfD debates early if the result ist blatantly obvious — cf. WP:SNOW and WP:COMMON as well. In the particular case you mentioned, this applies as well. However, if you insist on it, I'll reopen that debate. — Aitias // discussion 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later in WP:AFD is says "about five days", and WP:GTD says "a period usually no less than five days". DMacks (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the comment above. You closed this discussion after only 30 hours. Many deletion discussions get a few "delete" comments at the beginning, but that's no reason to to close the discussion after such a short time. I was going to comment at the discussion that the subject seems to have had some coverage in major Italian newspapers, and ask readers of Italian to evaluate those sources, but found that the debate had been closed prematurely. Could you please restore the article and relist the AfD so that it can be discussed properly? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've replied above applies here as well. If you insist on it, just tell me. — Aitias // discussion 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this conversation with the intention of insisting on anything, but simply to make a polite request. If you can't restore this without me insisting on it then I think that this is better handled by a deletion review. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the debate. There was nothing offending meant by "insist", by the way. Of course, you are completely free to go to DRV or take whatever action you deem necessary and appropriate. I only thought you may reconsider your request after thinking about my arguments. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had made any arguments relevant to this case then I would have thought about them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Let me get my hunting cap, I'm going to go sock hunting. This is just too soon after a user-related dispute, not to mention the rfa contained forged questions(Ironholds never edited the page, his question was copied). This also concerns me because the forged questions were forged to look like they were also from another person who was involved in the dispute.— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 23:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In regards to this editor, do you have the link to the poor man's checkuser?— Dædαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry, but what do you mean by the poor man's checkuser? — Aitias // discussion 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

request Wayfarers role-playing game to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.70.187 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will second that request. Why was this article deleted? And why so quickly? Seems heavy-handed.

Please provide a link to the page you are referring to. Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayfarers_(role-playing_game) -thanks.

The result of the relevant deletion debate was obvious; there is no reason for restoring the article. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have recently returned to the wiki from an extended break, and have begun to begin commenting of AfD's again (which is what I mainly did along with vandal patrolling, PROD patrolling, DRV and the like before) and I have noticed as others on this page have pointed out that you have been deleting articles short of the usual 5 day period. While I have personally closed several non-controversial keeps before 5 days (though not much short) as non-admin closures, I find it a bit disturbing that you close discussions quite early. I feel that it is usually a good policy to wait the full five days before deleting an article, or at least wait to within 12 hours. In particular I would like to ask you to reopen an article that I nominated for deletion that you closed before 48 hours had even passed (the record can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oracle Island) while this was at the time of closure an unanimous delete, and I believe if the 5 days had been allowed to pass it would have been deleted (I am still in favour of its deletion) closing in less than 48 hours is unacceptable, and I am willing to take this matter to DRV (see explanation bellow) to seek relisting if need be. I hope you have a good day. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a single reason for reopening. Please take your request to DRV, if deemed necessary. — Aitias // discussion 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will again respectfully ask you to reconsider. You closed the debate less than 48 hours after it was started, while unlikely it was still possible that information could have come to light. Again I remain in favor of the article deletion, but I believe the process should be followed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my comment about taking this to DRV, feeling that it would be boardering on a WP:POINT violation, which I have no intent on doing, the request for relisting still stands, but I will not take this to drv. Again hope you have a good day! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I am not seeing a single reason for reopening. If you had given one, I would have reconsidered (and I am still willing to reconsider if you give a reason for reopening). Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please un-delete article "Database Modeling Excel". The software is a free and open source, and it has been downloaded more than 2000 from CodePlex and more downloaded from SourceForge. It maybe isn't notable as your expected. but what is the notable's conditions? 192.207.190.100 (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please voice your opinion here. You can find our general notability guidelines here. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you should let the blocking admin know if someone has a request on hold for him. Technically he's the only one who can unblock. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? May I recommend having a look at this? Thanks. — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you going through the normal channels for deletion; however, I was not online to see that it had been proposed to be deleted. Further, there was no message on my talk page, which reeks of underhandedness.

Please email me a copy of the article. You can email it to jaxhomespy@yahoo.com

I will be recreating the article. He is unquestionably notable enough. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just recreated it. Don't bother. It has sources and everything! He's been on the air for decades for gods sake.. how more notable does he need to be? Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [5]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm familiar with that topic, sorry. — Aitias // discussion 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, My article is deleted and the real resean is not clear to me. I wondered if you could help me to revew it. Kind regards,Nankali

Could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 17:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have deleted the article on the novel Fe Fi FOE Comes. I assume this is because you agree with the deletion votes due to notability, since the copyright issue was settled by the publisher, yet the copyright block was never removed. Since notability is a value judgment, the standards are wholly subjective, and in this case, as well as the number of similar cases I have reviewed, almost always provided by editors who have not actually perused the merit of the literature itself, I believe such publications should be candidates for the ‘Banned Books’ article. If not then a sub of the article, such as Books Deleted From Wikipedia, would be appropriate to track literature removed from mention. I believe this would be fitting since surely in most cases someone familiar with the book has taken the trouble to write a short and informative article, which is a review and notability of sorts in and of itself, and editors rush to such articles looking for reasons to remove such obviously harmless entries. Other than serving the interests of the mainline publishing sources, and diminishing the public’s awareness of that which is being currently published, the purpose of such a policy escapes understanding. It is particularly inexplicable since such articles are the exception, and not the norm … most of what is published outside of the mass-market circuit gets little notice … by design. I’m sure as an administrator you could determine some easy way to direct these deletions to such a summary page. What is not allowed in Wikipedia seems to be a worthy topic of information. Thank you. DasV (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to the page you are referring to? Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page on the article Fe Fi FOE Comes no longer exists. You deleted it. My point was more generic, i.e. to include all such deletions either under the Banned Books article or to create a sub for Deleted Books. Once an article is deleted it can longer be tracked, and an overall picture of article deletions is absent. Thank you. DasV (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias, I have sent you an email. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Replied at Mazca's talk page. — Aitias // discussion 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you protected Peter's RFA from moves? It has never been moved. According to WP:PROTECT, you should not be protecting unless it has actually been moved. Majorly talk 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the protection policy. It was merely a mistake. Thanks for the message. — Aitias // discussion 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :) Majorly talk 21:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They usually aren't, but in this case, Jake created an alternative page for IPs and new accounts to edit. I figured it should be alright, but feel free to unprotect it if you feel it's necessary. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Thanks for the explanation. — Aitias // discussion 12:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's how it works [6]. I wasn't aware. Thanks for maintaining the page -- Samir 10:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to help. :) — Aitias // discussion 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aitias, thank you very much for participating and for asking me questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently closed the AfD on this issue. However, after the AfD was filed the name of the article was changed slightly, from Orly taitz to Orly Taitz it appears you deleted one, but not the mirror site. Thanks and best. Bali ultimate (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin fixed it. All good now, no action/attention needed.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't care that much about the debate in question, but let me bring a few points to your attention. Your original revert was based on the page being "a possibly high risk template." Now I don't know what qualifies a "high-risk" page to you, but to me an edit notice for a pretty small page in the Wikipedia namespace (that can only be seen on one page) is not high-risk in any way whatsoever. Thus I reverted, rebutting your edit summary. Next you reverted, changing your reasoning by stating that since it's in the MediaWiki namespace it is meant to only be edited by admins. Again, if you look at edit notices, you will see that most are used in the user namespace, where it is very common to add a transcluded page to the MediaWiki notice page so regular editors can edit their notices. Again, there is no risk in having regular editors edits this header, as it is not a site notice, rather a single page notice where many people would notice any irregular/bad faith changes. This also allows the regular editor to improve the encyclopedia. Lastly, I cannot explain to you the irony of telling me "Please do not revert this again; use the talk page if you wish" when not using the talk page yourself. Unlike you, I have and still am using the talk page, found here, where I explained my changes and asked for input. If you would care to have constructive conversation the talk page is located over there. Obviously, us edit warring over a random page that almost no one is going to see is silly and pointless. I'm not going to revert again, so if you really feel that strong about it, go ahead. I'll be at the talk page if you feel like discussing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @

Hi - I didn't see that discussion, but I don't think what you're saying says really applies - community consensus is overwhelmingly pointing towards WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW, the number of edits is somewhat of an irrelevant factor. If the candidate disagrees with the close, he could always revert it himself. — neuro^(talk) 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note: I've left a message at neuro's talk page nearly simultaneously. This message also responds to the points he brought up in his message here. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNOW seems very sketchy on the whole "when it should be done" thing, but you are probably right. — neuro^(talk) 00:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider WP:CRAT#Promotions which states that the candidate should be given a chance to withdraw first (although I think I have written that section so it might sound a bit strange as an argument, but you know, WP:SILENCE applies ;-) SoWhy 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that helpful link, SoWhy. :) — Aitias // discussion 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Autias, if you are a sysop, can you protect my user page against IP's edition?

Thanks, Vitorbraziledit (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Aitias // discussion 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message I left for you at User talk:Botbottbot.Botbottbot (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at your talk page. — Aitias // discussion 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, less than one day after it was opened. The editor who nominated did notify the creator, who was already under a topic ban from anything related to that topic; he was the article creator, but was not the principal editor of the article. The principal editors were not notified, neither was a notice placed with Talk:Cold fusion where those knowledgeable about the topic might see it. The deletion seems improper; rather, the article content was intended not as a POV fork to provide detail that would be inappropriate to provide in Cold fusion, and the article was, on the face, reliably sourced. The intention would then have been to take a an NPOV summary back into Cold fusion using summary style. Therefore I'm asking you to undelete the article and, if you wish, reopen or restart the AfD. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aitias.--Abd (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - the article you restored was a single revision redirect to User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, which I presume wasn't your intention (since the redirect would be speediable as an R2). Assuming you meant to restore the article itself to the mainspace, I moved it from Abd's user space (where I'd moved it at his request) back to the article space. If this wasn't what you intended, feel free to correct it. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that, Sarcasticidealist. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to delete that page. I mean there are things on this site that have less notable then fanny pak is and they are not deleted. I also have a question have you been on a tv show and placed third in something you like to do? also did you go on tour doing what you love? have you been touring the world for anything? I think not. so do us all a favor and undelete the page and all the work people put into it. I don't see how the opinion of just you can delete the page. I mean there is a article about the stern of a ship that was way shorter then this one was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern So why has that not been deleted? I mean you could just add that to a "ship" page and not waist more space.

Please provide a link to the page you are referring to. Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 13:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article was Fanny Pak, deleted by Aitias as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanny Pak. It was far from just Aitias's opinion that got this article deleted; it was a very clear consensus of multiple editors. Thanks ~ mazca ^t|c 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aitias, could you come and leave your input on this issue? I really tried to assume good faith "again" not leaving my opinion to the previous AN that you reported, but I could not bear his another personal attacks "harassment" against not only me but other editors. I would be graful if you voice your own thought. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias, I find Caspian Blues accusation of harassment to be absurd - please take a look at the article he claims to show my harassment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeeYa&action=history - please note that he had never touched that article before I edited it, yet within 30mins of me editing it, he is there reverting me. Anyway, I have responded in more detail on the ANI report. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing articles of Korean-pop cultures unlike you. It should be noted that you never edited the article until Historiographer expaned the article. Your sudden appearcne to the article should be answered. Your intetion of the removing twice of reliable sources from the article are also the same as you harassed Kuebie (talk · contribs). You removed his "contribution with dubious reasons". I've removed your original reserach with no source, then you called me anti-Japanese troll motivated by anti-Japense sentiment.--Caspian blue 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not continue this discussion here, it is continued problems between us that have led to the proposed topic ban. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice diversion from your responsibilty for your personal attacks. I originally proposed a topic-ban on you only or proper saction.--Caspian blue 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aitias,

I've moved your note about reopening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments to under the title line of the AfD since I felt it made the note more understandable in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 28 and Wikipedia:Deletion today pages where it might have been confused with the AfD above it. Hope that's fine with you. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's all right. Thank you. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your deletion policy. One more way for you to use Aitias for "cause" versus "reason." I would like the page restored.

Rick Hendley (my real name)

The result of the relevant deletion debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly taitz) was quite obvious. As you have not given a reason for restoring, I for one do not see a reason for restoring the article either. — Aitias // discussion 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think The Cartel (record distributor) went through a prod last year but I've only just seen it through a linked page. Can we have an undelete please. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. — Aitias // discussion 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hmmm... Not a lot to work with though, is there? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap....you deleted the article and closed the discussion right after I posted my reason for deletion..lol. Cheers, Razorflame 18:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, somewhat funny. — Aitias // discussion 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again, too. Cheers, Razorflame 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? :P — Aitias // discussion 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you did it to me on Xenotone, and then again on NUT Converter. Lol...I had to fix my deletion reason on NUT Converter after you closed it because there was a bolding error and a broken link that needed fixing. Cheers, Razorflame 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) By the way, I remember you from back when you and me used to work on combatting vandalism using Huggle. Do you remember that? Cheers, Razorflame 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I do. :) — Aitias // discussion 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychostats

As there was a clear consensus for deletion, I can not see a reason for restoring. Also, you haven't given one either. Thus, I am not going to restore the article. — Aitias // discussion 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the RfA, it slipped my mind ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for deleting of my page. This is the example of discrimination. Slovenia and Croatia doesn't exist. Slovenian and Croatian lebels, composers, musicians, inventors... doesn't exist. Thanx once again. This crime act can't stop my music. have a nice gay, pardon : day. Kukovica3 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Felix Milton has been deleted without chance to respond.

Please reinstate & nominate for deletion again so we can provide any other evidence required.

Hi! Please see User:Nichalp. I'm ok btw :-) =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]