Hi, I appreciate your point re this list, but it seems to me to be a pity to delete a page into which so much effort has gone (even though that effort might have been more useful elsewhere). So I'm asking editors if they can rethink and factor that in - I appreciate they may well reach the same conclusion even after a rethink :-) Dlyons493 Talk

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Didn't any of the editors take the time to think about the point of this page? What is its encyclopedic value? I can see a value in trivia pub quiz-type affairs but nothing encyclopedic. I doesn't appear that the article has changed significantly in the last few hours for me to change my opinion. Even if the article was split in to its consistiuent colours, what purpose would those nine daughter pages serve? I don't think that this is encyclopedic in any form.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know you're busy, but thank you for deleting a duplicate article. I forgot the name of it. Cheers. --Starionwolf 21:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, that's ok! Thank you for saying thanks, it is much appreciated.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. IrishGuy talk 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, glad to be able to help you out!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the VALIS(Band) member related wikisites you showed me something I was searching for. The notability tag vs. the speedy delete (db) one. Sometimes I think it should be db rather than AfD but here now is another way to give a bit more time when it seems appropriate. Thanks! Lsjzl 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words! I am glad that someone can learn something from my actions as an admin. If you want to see more useful tags for reviewing new articles, please look at Wikipedia:Template messages for a host of useful ideas and information. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have blocked this user for forty-eight hours, as per your request on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) --D-Day ^{I'm all ears} 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you closed this article's AfD with the "redirect" result. However, from 6 votes, 3 asked for the redirect to be created, and 3 asked for the deletion. Sorry for asking, but did I miss something? I thought policy asked for further discussion in these cases. JoaoRicardo^talk 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I used Rough consensus from the Admin deletion guidelines as my guide. Looking at the results, the debate was either to delete the page or to convert it in to a redirect - nobody wanted to keep the material. As I had participated in the discussion, I looked again at the nature of the page and the debate on AfD to determine which course of action to take. I took the view that the author was clearly looking to discuss the Kennedy assassination but had failed to do so in an adequate manner. Whilst I agree with NawlinWiki's comment that other important events aren't described in articles titled according to the date of the event, I thought that this date would be significant for the most recent three-or-four generations of Wikipedia users. Because of this, a redirect appeared to be an easier option than a deletion and with my change of mind a rough consensus was achieved, hence the decision.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your position now. Thank you for clarifying me. :) JoaoRicardo^talk 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou kitten. I'll watch for anymore edits to the page. Good work! Have a hug xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm recreating this as suggested by American Patriot 1776. Universities are intrinsically notable. Dlyons493 Talk

That's fine. Bear in mind the copyvio comments; the notable status of the institution is not in dispute.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aeropagitica, I don't know if you saw my message on the VP message board. You need to download VandalProof 121.exe from the download page. You need version 1.2.1. Just copy the new .exe over the old one. Bye --Starionwolf 04:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I did see your message and I have now copied the new .exe over, as you suggested. VandalProof now lets me log in on either the first or the second go and works quite nicely once it has done so! Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my user page. I'm not sure I would have even caught it, at least not right away. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The vandal is now temporarily blocked for this and other vandal attacks. Let's hope that they either reform or go elsewhere.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi (aeropagitica)! Thanks for closing the AfD for this article. However, I have doubts about the decision reached, and have listed it on deletion review. Regards, Kimchi.sg 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! If you look at User_talk:(aeropagitica)#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FUniversity_of_Sagar, you will see that Dlyons493 is going to recreate the article minus the copyrighted material that brought it to AfD in the first place.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I did not see that section until too late. I have withdrawn the DRV. Regards, Kimchi.sg 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, nice to see that you are following policy and procedure, especially as you are going for admin status at the moment!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the tool still has some bugs in it. — Jun. 19, '06 [21:37] <freak|>

Yes, many apologies for the warning being placed on to your Talk page, we both reverted the same vandal and you got there before me. All corrected manually now!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just don't accidentally block me and I won't get too upset. — Jun. 23, '06 [17:58] <freak|>

This page is now protected from editing by unregistered users, as requested on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, much appreciated! --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page Talk:The Unconsoled is being contantly used as a bulletin board mirror. How can we stop this? - CobaltBlueTony 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I have semi-protected this Talk page to prevent IP addresses from editing. Contributors will have to be logged in to edit for the timebeing.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've just blocked two AOL ips for a month, please reconsider and reset your blocks on AOLs, fifteen minutes is usually sufficent as they rarely use any one ip for more than fifteen minutes. --Alf ^melmac 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will change this block due to the nature of AOL access to the Internet.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your e-mail! I'm glad that you sorted out the problem with your computer and can now see the images on the above article. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bothering aeropagitica, the problem was involving zone alarms's ad-blocking feature. (Z_E_U_S)

The Article as been blanked, can it be deleted since it is going to have consenus to delete? Aeon 23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was blanked by an anonymous IP address. If they wanted to register their opinion then they should have done so on the AfD rather than vandalise the article-in-question. I have reverted their vandalism and left a message to this effect on their Talk page. The AfD may be relisted because of a lack of votes or closed as a delete consensus by the closing admin. In either case, when the consensus is not a speedy delete, the process takes five Calendar days from the point of the AfD starting.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure on the proper way to go about that Aeon 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I would like to dispute your delete reason that Speedman was not notable in that it was published in black belt magazine. Please email the http://www.thespeedman.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiveego (talk • contribs)

Please discuss your reasons for keeping this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedman.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why wikipedia.org/wiki/Dottmatrixx can;t be added. They are an up and coming band in Australia, have 3 releases, signed to an Independent electro/synth label and planning a European tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackserenity (talk • contribs)

Did you read WP:Music? The article doesn't present any evidence that the band has fulfilled the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia - one charting indie-label album; two charting major-label albums; charting singles; notable members or major tours. The Myspace page is adequate for this band at this time.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed in AfD today Nii Ahene was speedily dispatched. Well, he's back, identical article to last time. Wasn't sure what to do, but I guess you will. So... there you go! :-) --DaveG12345 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, It looks from the history of the article that it has been posted to the userpage of User:Uberrascht and then deleted by RHaworth, so that should be an end to it. Thanks for letting me know!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've voted at WP:AID before, but I just noticed that when you did, you forgot to update the deadline for one of the projects. You may want to read WP:AID#How to vote to educate yourself on how the deadlines, etc. work for WP:AID. —Mets501 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right! I haven't voted on WP:AID before and I thought that I had read all of the rules. Many thanks for pointing this out to me, much appreciated.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. —Mets501 (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish to have my Wikipedia account deleted. Is that possible? Paulus Caesar 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia:Account_deletion#Deleting_your_user_account for details.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So you can't change my username and make me "vanish"? I have to go through some kind of process? Paulus Caesar 02:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article Neo-Nazism, specifically the part about Croatia.... I'm involved in an edit war with an IP address. I reverted some of his edits, as what i saw on the talk page convinced me that the article wasn't NPOV. I've read into the matter somewhat, and I'm rather convinced it isn't. I removed the offending paragraphs, but the IP address added them back. I left notes on his talk page, but He doesn't seem to reply. he mentions on my talk page the Concensus and Community are meaningless, and when I tried to meet him half way, by applying an 'unbalanced' tag but leaving the paragraphs in, he removes it. Any suggestions? I think we'd both appreciate your input! HawkerTyphoon 20:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Edit wars are a bad thing here on the English Wikipedia and the three revert rule is a policy designed to eliminate them. The edit history of Neo-Nazism indicates that you have clearly broken this rule within a 24-hour period. By rights, I should block you and the offending IP address for this violation. I notice that you have attempted to resolve the dispute on Talk:Neo-Nazism, which is a good thing. As this hasn't worked so far, I will encourage you to take the next step and go on with negotiation in order to build consensus. Mediation might be better in this instance - I leave the choice up to you. I will report the 3RR violations on the administrators' noticeboard to bring this to the attention of the administrator community and hopefully prevent this from reoccuring.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering if you'd revisit your vote on the VFD for Cicero's Pizza. You state that you don't believe it meets the requirements of WP:CORP however evidence to the contrary has been presented on both the article page and the VFD. Cicero's Pizza does infact meet WP:CORP requirement 1A and is considered a notable business as serveral non directory, or business produced news articles from independent sources have been written about the establishment. Gateman1997 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi ... I'm a bit new here and I need some assistance!!! Would you have a look at this article ... I've tried to be friendly, and would appreciate anyone(!!) else's oppinion. At the very least it needs a major re-write and at worst it is just plain advertising ... Thanks !! David Humphreys 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left an email about my RFA and your vote, please read and reply to it. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to read it this afternoon as I have no access to e-mail at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have e-mailed a reply to you!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment in AfD about ACIM. Do you really think that it should be kept even though the citations for ACIM are nothing more than self-serving websites? I don't ask this as a challenge, but seriously looking for information. I am rather new here and would appreciate the comments. I normally do "cleanup work" and maintenance and I came upon another article, which is the book that the advocacy group centers upon. I performed the citing analysis on the references and besides having no verifiability, they appeared to have been modified to look as many sources rather than only a few. I corrected those and attempted to put the facts into the article and was presented with a wave of unpleasurable sentiment. Since articles should have actual facts and I was not allowed to edit and only ignored in my requests for discussion, I took it upon myself to submit for review each of the articles in the entire tree. I personally don't have time for playing revert/vandal games, and allowing others to make the decision seemed very fair to me. If you have any questions about any of that, please feel free to let me know. Thanks! Ste4k 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I presume that you refer to the William Thetford article up for AfD today? Don't forget to add links to articles to which you refer, it is so much easier to understand enquiries that way! My comments don't refer to the verifiability or otherwise of the material relating to A Course in Miracles, as I have no knowledge of that subject. I refer instead to the language and tone of the material added. It seems very poor and subjective in scope, decidedly less-encyclopedic than the biographical material at the top of the article. If the cleanup work involves removing unverified material then so be it. An encyclopedia is not the place for opinion or polemic. If something can't be verified through research then it should be clearly marked to this effect and deleted if research proves fruitless. It is good that you observe the three revert rule as it is in no one's best interest to see you blocked for edit warring.

I think that the message is that cleanup involves more than tidying up grammar and syntax. A good editor should have the principles of writing a good article in mind when carrying out this process. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Certainty principle. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article that I speedily deleted on June 7th consisted of two sentences: "Do not fight with the Truth. Do not fight with the will of God." As you can see, the content had nothing to do with a mathematical proof and was merely a religion-based point-of-view comment. You can find this comment on Weriu's Talk page, as well as my report that the page had been deleted as a {{db-repost}}. I received no reply from any party before being informed of this deletion review by Deathphoenix. I believe that I acted from a policy position and my audit trail is clear to see.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently for an article I'm writing, I uploaded two covershots of the book which the article is about:

Image:The_Seeing_Stone_2006.jpg Image:The_Seeing_Stone_2001.jpg

I was under the impression that these covershots adhere to copyright permission laws due to the official FAQ posted at the publisher's official website. The FAQ may be found here:

http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/faq.aspx#rights

As you can see, it clearly states:

I would like to reproduce one of your book covers. Do I need Orion's permission to do this?

No. You are welcome to reproduce book covers, without alterations.

I assumed that, since the images in question were, of course, unaltered, they would be perfectly legal. However, a friendly member brought up a valid point on this subject; the 'reproduction' in question is that of book stores creating a poster or stand in order to promote the book, and as related to posting the images on a website such as this, I would not have valid permission, and would be in violation of copyright laws. I was hoping you, or some other member could clear this up for me. Thanks.

Helwer7 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I am by no means an expert on copyright matters but I have done some research for you. An American contributor looking at an American book cover could probably use {{Book cover}} under the Wikipedia:Fair_use#Tagging_fair_use_image_files Fair Use convention. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others states that you must make a note of the fact that you have obtained permission of some kind from the copyright holder, along with names and dates, where appropriate. Please study these guidelines carefully before deciding whether to use the cover images or not. There are many book cover images on Wikipedia. Take a look at the permissions associated with other covers in order to guide your decision, bearing in mind the above advice.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've made some edits to The Call of Cthulhu (film) in regard to your concerns about its notability. I'm planning to remove the "notability" tag, but I figured I'd give you a chance to make sure you agree that that is the correct course of action. Miraculouschaos 17:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for getting back to me on this. I think that the article requires one or two quotes from film festivals and/or reviews to illustrate its notability either in technical achievement (silent films) or cultural and critical response. If you have reviews that don't gush, i.e. "Best film ever!" but offer some structured reasoning then so much the better. The cast list doesn't particularly add anything to the article as most of the people appear to be non-notable. I'm trying to see this from a researchers' point-of-view - what did this film achieve in terms of production (scripting, filming, editing, distribution) and in the minds of its audience (critical reviews, awards). Well done on your improvements and I would still like to see the film one day!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but you seem to be moving the goal posts here. Miraculouschaos 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

None taken! If you're happy that all of the available and relevent information is in the article then it can't be improved upon at the moment. I imagine that any of the imformation that I have asked about above can be added as-and-when it is created in the future. I guess that you can remove the tag now. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to slap an advert tag on an article, please add your comments to the Talk page. Unless you do so soon, I'll revert the tag. The article in its form makes no representations or promises to anyone, so you're probably off. --Leifern 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't discuss the notability of the company. It merely illustrates its existence and indicates the services offered. Is it notable according to any of the criteria set out in WP:CORP? If so, can the evidence be provided?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)