→Unblock template: +com |
|||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
::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 "?"). - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 18:15, 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 "?"). - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Well, this was not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUnblock&diff=267062964&oldid=262320116 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. — [[User:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">''A''<small>itias</small></font>]] <span style="color: #999;">//</span> [[User talk:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"><small>discussion</small></font>]] 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
:::Well, this was not [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUnblock&diff=267062964&oldid=262320116 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. — [[User:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F">''A''<small>itias</small></font>]] <span style="color: #999;">//</span> [[User talk:Aitias|<font face="Tahoma" size="3.9" color="#20406F"><small>discussion</small></font>]] 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. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:27, 12 March 2009
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/wiki/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 t|c 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/wiki/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/wiki/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)
- 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)
- 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 Wikipedia'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 (talk) 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)
- 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)
- 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)