Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aitias (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 13 March 2009 (→Unblock template: long reply @Acalamari). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am really busy in real life and therefore I can not respond swiftly to queries. Responses will take much longer than usual. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

User talk:Aitias/archive 6/tph

Revoking of Twinkle

I wish to discuss with you the reasons for revoking my twinkle access. I would like you to state the reasons why you think that some of my edits were unjustified. A lot of the reversions I have made are to keep data that have been otherwise deleted without reason on the edit summary, thus their edits were unjustified leading me to revert them. Discuss, please? Flaming Grunt 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rowdy the Ant

Now, this user was indef blocked for being a general nuisance by you, good call. User requests an unblock but is refused because he said he'd be going should he be blocked, also good. Problem is that the user still seems to be here and tending to his talkpages (yes, he mentions as much) as if he's waiting out a parole hearing. Any action to be taken here? treelo _radda 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take the lack of a response as a statement that nothing should be done, I beg to disagree on that. I know that his editing of his own talkpage whilst blocked isn't a bad thing if he's not screaming obscenities about others or generally being disruptive but can we allow him to use his page as some crude form of therapy? I don't believe in any sense he should be editing in general and whilst limiting it to his talkpage alone lessens the damage it's just giving him an outlet with which to mope about and want for an unblock which he reckons isn't forthcoming. So, it's more for his well-being than it is for my own need to see him be quiet. treelo _radda 23:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Thanks for responding so quickly to protect that Norway page. I've reported the IP that posted all that vandalism. Weird thing is that he put the vandalism up and then redacted a bunch of it leaving only the stuff in the infobox —יודייוס (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Aitias // discussion 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Neolibtarianism

Hello, Aitias. A while back the article for Neolibertarianism was deleted, I was wondering if I could create a new one? I feel I am up to the task and I have most of my sources and references ready. Is it alright if you unlock it? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

May I recommend you create it in your own userspace first? It can always be moved once it's ready.  Frank  |  talk  00:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's better to ask the protecting administrator. :) — Aitias // discussion 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I ask him. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete

http://en.wikipedia.org/H._H._Holmes:_America%27s_First_Serial_Killer

 Done. — Aitias // discussion 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle revocation

For how long will this needless revocation last? I assure you, the reversions I have made were only to stop un-summarized data removal. Flaming Grunt 09:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at all the edits Aitias specified in his message to you, and I absolutely agree with him that every one of those edits is clear misuse of Twinkle. Four of the edits you reverted were simple removal of unnecessary/uncited content by established users, and while you're certainly within your rights (per WP:BRD) to revert them once, you should (a) use an edit summary yourself to explain why, (b) not mark the edit as vandalism, and (c) discuss the issue with the editor in question. Simply rolling back their edit with no comment or a "vandalism" comment is somewhat rude and unhelpful. The other four were all examples of you, in two cases very uncivilly, preventing users from clearing or maintaining their own user/talk pages. Warnings on talk pages are just that - warnings. The person removing them can simply be taken as evidence they have been read - the warnings remain in the page history. It is not, therefore, vandalism to remove them and it should generally not be reverted as such. ~ mazca 14:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article titled tantalum electrolytic capacitors

Hi,

You deleted the article titled Tantalum_Capacitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Tantalum_capacitor

I sent a message to your talk page some time ago asking for an undelete / rollback the article still hasn't been undeleted / rolled back. Tantalum capacitors are very different to electrolytic capacitors - their manufacture, the mechanism of action of the dielectric and their applications are very different. Saying that the article has no room for differentiation would be like saying that a Porsche and a Mack truck are the same. 

Please roll back the deletion on this article I want to read it!!!!!!

Thanks

David

Davecrawley (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Tantalum_capacitor

ANI

Just letting you know I provided the diffs you requested at WP:ANI#User:Malleus Fatuorum's lack of civility. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:27, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Aitias, you have must have balls of steel to block. Just wait for the accusations of admin abuse and probable references to you being a child, regardless of your age, and whatnot. Majorly talk 00:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Malleus

Just a heads up, your block was undone....not by me I hasten to add. Pedro :  Chat  00:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like formally to request that you reconsider this long block of a productive, if uncivil, editor, which seems to me to be punitive rather than preventive. I have not been involved with this dispute but have interacted with Malleus previously. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious, what would you consider a non-punitive block for incivility? It seems like any block for incivility, or really any policy violation other than vandalism, would be viewed by some people as punitive. How are we supposed to enforce civility? Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

For relatively minor incivility in a long-established user, a very short block period (an hour or so) might sometimes be appropriate, though I think even that is more likely to escalate the situation than defuse it. This long block just seems to me to disrupt the good work Malleus is doing here because of a relatively trivial incident where he lost his cool. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So you basically don't think civility is worth enforcing, if I understand you correctly. Not that that would be an invalid opinion, but I'd have to disagree with it, and I think it's not particularly in line with the current policy. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:27, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally, our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to have a social networking site. Ignoring uncivil comments is often the course that best meets our goal. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As a personal opinion, feeling that ignoring incivility is the best route would be fine. But as an admin, dare I say, you're supposed to uphold Misplaced Pages's rules, so I don't think ignoring the rules as a matter of course is an official stance that you should be acting on, or asking others to act on. The fact is we have a civility policy for a reason. If you want to work to change that policy though, I would not complain (I would still disagree though). Equazcion •✗/C • 02:47, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It's not cut and dry. EA is right when s/he says ignoring comments is a good policy. But that is usually the best response for the recipient, not other observers. It's less "enforcing the rules" than it is ensuring that people can work in an environment free from caustic remarks and harassment. If the "rules" were dead wrong, you would see plenty of admins refusing to enforce them. In a way, the civility "rules" are wrong. What is written on that page poorly describes what should be best practice and poorly describes current practice. that is one reason why enforcement is spotty. But in this case, e need to make sure that people are tramping over others simply because they think they can, for whatever reason. Some may hold the opinion that incivility doesn't matter. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, but it is dependent entirely on a subjective determination of where the threshold lies. We should be responsible and attempt to use a different threshold if we feel ours is too high. Protonk (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo moving article

Hi, I made a mistake and I need admin help to resolve it. I noticed you are online, so could you help me move Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulaton to Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (as the edit on the latter redir page hinders me from doing so)? Right now the correct term is a redir loop. Thanks, Where next Columbus? (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please request moves here. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice

... step away and don't look back. There is nothing to gain. — Coren  18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Malleus now says you are sockpuppet of Caulde. See his talk page for more information. Majorly talk 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock template

What is the point of having the extra {{subst:}} there? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Decline reason here... — Aitias // discussion 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not seeing this used very often, and it surely isn't a default. Hopefully later on I'll drop a line on the talk page there and look for some constructive discussion (opposed to "..." and "?"). - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this was not added by me, but by User:Sandstein nearly two months ago. It is of help and there is no reason for removing it with the reason "fix" (clearly uncalled-for). Thus, your revert was clearly inappropriate — it would have been your job to discuss (and give reasons for) your removal of a perfectly reasonable template that was added a long time ago. — Aitias // discussion 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

clearly inappropraite, uncalled-for. Ooh, WP:ANI time? I hadn't realized it was a template and just thought about having to remove it every time I decline a request. No need to get upset about it and a nice "hey, it's a template" note would have been courteous ... oh, right. Never mind then. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"clearly inappropraite, uncalled-for. Ooh, WP:ANI time?" No need for your nice little personal attacks, Rjd0060. I know you really, really like them, but please remain civil — at least at my talk page. Thanks. Also, you accused me of being not constructive — the right course of action would have been to simply admit that you did a mistake and apologise for accusing me of being not constructive. — Aitias // discussion 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias: More and more I continue to see your name popping up and more and more it's nothing good. I nearly re-opened your RFC following the stunt with RMHED. And then you chose to re-insert yourself into drama with the Malleus Fatuorum block. I'm quite inclined to start a new RFC if you can't cooperate and collaborate with other editors. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. :) Both blocks were entirely justified and supported by consensus. — Aitias // discussion 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind me mentioning: Reading "if you can't cooperate and collaborate with other editors" from you is quite amusing. . — Aitias // discussion 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Laugh it off, use cute emoticons, whatever. But I've been around here quite a bit longer than you and it's rare that I've seen the level of vitriol that I see any time your name comes up. (And I say this as someone who has a few enemies of my own.) I agree with Acalamari's comment below; a break of some type might do a world of good. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with MZMcBride's comment above about your name appearing a lot recently, especially on the noticeboards, with drama alongside it. Now I can assure you that I'm not here to lecture you or question the legitimacy of the RMHED and Malleus events, but I should point out that both situations were drama-fests, and they garnered you a lot of enemies (even with endorsements of the block, there are several disgruntled users from those topics). Before them it was the rollback scenario, then after Malleus came Jasonr's RfA (which ended up as another drama-fest), and now the above. I kindly and firmly suggest taking a step back from it all, maybe even take a Wikibreak for a bit? I went on a (nearly) month-long break, and came back feeling much better. You're, of course, free not to follow or take notice of anything I've just said, but I am trying to help you. Acalamari 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Acalamari, there are two general/fundamental, significant problems here. The first one is quite simple and I have explained it once here already: There are policies for some reason and they have to be adhered to by anyone. No one, regardless of how many articles they write, is allowed to violate them, concretely to attack other editors personally or become uncivil. However, there are some admins (including MZMcBride) who simply don't want realise this point and think their friends should be given a license to be rude or generally, to violate policies — just because they do write articles or whatsoever. Nevertheless, I for one am not willing to apply these double standards. The next problem is simple as well and it's directly related to the one I've just explained: If you take a reasonable and justified admin action (which is even supported by consensus) towards such an user there will always be some users who cry "admin abuse" or the like. Those users are the problem, not the admin who takes the proper action. Those are the users who stir up the so much criticised drama. I think these points are clear and there is no need for further explanations. I have found out anyway that there is absolutely no point at all in trying to discuss with some users as they won't admit that you're right even if you're blatantly apparently right (just cf. above for instance). Having that said, the only reason for me writing this long response to you is anyway just because I always had a great amount of respect for you and I still believe that you may realise that the points I've explained above are true. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/Halo_Solitude

I do not get why it was deleted. It was not meant for advertising, nor as a webhost. It was meant as an introduction/archive of the project it was for. It was an easy way for people to be able to look at how the project has progressed over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corytheidiot (talk • contribs)

There was clear consenus by the community why it was deleted. Also, since it was a deletion debate, Aitias can't restore the page. See here for more. Versus22 _talk 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)