User talk:AGK/Archive/10

The following user talk subpage an archive of archived discussions on User talk:AGK. Please do not modify it. New discussions should be raised through this link; to contact this user, see User:AGK/Contact. For an overview of old discussions, see User talk:AGK/Archive.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[edit] Catch up

Hello again! I had a mess about a week ago with the cloak request system and have since cleared out a lot of broken requests (broken due to me, rather than the applicants). This means that your request was probably removed. I tried to send a memo to everyone that needed to resubmit, but unless you missed that I clearly didn't hit everyone, so sorry about that. Please redo your request from the top and then I can set your cloak. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for getting in touch ;-) regards ~ Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

Hi there; a question. In the case of a user such as User:70.189.149.118, whom you just blocked for one day for vandalism (which clearly had been committed by this IP address), if a warning is given and no further vandalism then takes place, as is the case here, is a block appropriate? I normally wait to see if further vandalism occurs after the final warning, as otherwise the wording of the final warning makes no sense.--Anthony.bradbury 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the disruption by the IP, I took a decision to remove its editing privileges for a short time; my original intent was to remove the block in around an hour.

Regards,
Anthøny 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your call.--Anthony.bradbury 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC cloak request

I am AGK on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/AGK.

Cheers,
Anthøny 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSD

Tell you what: you work from top left of the page, and I will work from bottom right.--Anthony.bradbury 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do ~ Anthøny 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pending mediation

Per your request, I have tried to discontinue the discussion regarding Stephen Barrett, but Ronz keeps pestering me on my talk page. I have asked him politely several times to refrain. He has ignored my requests. In turn, I have reported him on AN/I. I am hoping that this will end his harrassment, but I would appreciate any help which you can provide here. Is there anything within your capacity as mediator you can do? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Levine2112 is trying to change the scope of the mediation to include the issue of how many books Barrett has written, as well as the behavioral issues that MaxPont clearly violated in the subsequent discussions: WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:HARRASS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. I had hoped that Levine2112 would make some sort of stand against such violations, considering he's often so very quick to claim harassment, hostility, and incivility in others. I don't know what to make of the situation other than there's a double-standard here. --Ronz 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank here: the attitude between you two parties (as well as a number of the others with one another) and the relationship between you is completely inappropiate for a Mediation case. Mediation depends completely on a civility and willingness to discuss with one another between the parties, and this is completely absent from this dispute ~ Anthøny 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that Levine2112 is a disruptive editor, prone to assuming bad faith and ignoring policy when it suits his needs. Despite this, I went into your mediation by putting it aside, hoping that the formal mediation would force him to be civil and cooperative. From the mediation so far, I don't think he's capable of being cooperative when it comes to topics related to Barrett.

I'm also concerned, given Levine2112's habit of assuming bad faith of others to make his points, that he either doesn't understand WP:AGF or is incapable of it in the context of Barrett. If this is the case, then we're all wasting our time with these mediation attempts. --Ronz 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One bit of advice: don't go throwing accusations of bad faith on behalf of other editors ~ Anthøny 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I am happy that you recognize the bad faith accusations by Ronz. I, as I have mentioned numerous times, believe mediation can and will help. I think under your supervision, all parties will be forced to stay on point and - more important - act civilly. I regret that Ronz thinks I am being a "disruptive editor" in terms of Stephen Barrett (even though I haven't edited persay on that article for quite some time). I have only been involved in discussion. Further, let me make it clear that I have never tried to change the scope of the mediation to include how many books Barrett has written. This, like many of Ronz's accusations, is a total fabrication. My point - my only point - during the ongoing debate about Barrett's authorship is that Ronz seems to be inconsistently applying Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEIGHT) with that case as opposed to the board certification case. I am sorry for mentioning this because instead of discussing policy with me, Ronz launched into an attack on my character. I would have preferred a civil discussion. Again, I am prepared to admit that my interpretation of policy is wrong. I am also completely open to compromise. I hope that Ronz feels the same way. I am anxious to re-start our mediation and have some resolve with this matter. In case mediation proves not to be successful, I have listed our case with ArbCom. I know they have a huge caseload, and I want to be on their decks early. Regardless, I have high hopes for mediation. Thanks, Anthony. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew - I fully agree with you; Ronz is acting in bad faith, banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so. Ronz: this is getting beyond the ignorable stage; if you proceed with disrupting the encyclopedia, as well as what is undoubtedly going out of your way, I will have to take further action, as well as post to WP:ANI to request the backing of my fellow Administrators. Andrew: unfortunately when parties such as this are involved in Mediation, it is both fruitless and pointless, and therefore I see no point in proceeding; one further point: I've retired from the Mediation Cabal, and have taken up membership with the Mediation Committee, so a MedCabal case would not be able to be handled by myself.

Levine and Ronz: hopefully you will take these points on board, and I appreciate your input in this matter; however, I believe Mediation would be unproductive, and I would not be willing to serve as the Mediator in this particular case after observing the action that has taken place before the main issues are even approached (i.e., Mediation has started).

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First, congrats on your membership with MedCom. Second, with regards to the Stephen Barrett "board certification" issue, would ArbCom be the next step for us to take? Or is there another route which you would suggest for us to take first? Thanks again for your help with this seemingly innocuous but instead rather very contentious issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not comment on a possible progression to the ArbCom; instead, you may wish to consult with the other parties or contact a member of the Arbitration Commitee. Basically, you have to make that decision for yourself; good luck! Regards ~ Anthøny 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine2112's inability to follow WP:AGF is obvious, and I think I can demonstrate such. If you are preventing me from discussing such problems, then you should go forward with your AN/I. However, I'm having a hard time understanding your comment above [1]. You mean "Levine2112" when you say "Andrew" I think, but I'm not sure. Who is "Andrew?"--Ronz 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew is Levine ~ Anthøny 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Three things: I think I successfully put aside any assumptions I had of Levine2112's behavior during the mediation (my contributions to the discussion), and I can do so again.

"banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so" I will back them when and if necessary. If you need to go to AFI about this, please do.

"I believe Mediation would be unproductive" So, should there be some formal announcement that the Mediation is halted? Maybe qualified until a new mediator is found? --Ronz 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"...Banding accusations about willy-nilly..."—you never do back them Ronz, my friend, and there is where the problem lies; furthermore, any accusations of bad faith posted in public during or in the lead up to Mediation is one of the most detramental things you can do ... during my Mediations I insist on any accusations/claims of bad faith being directed to me via a method listed here (excluding my talk page) - e.g., email - rather than in the user's face;

"...Mediation would be unproductive..."—I regret to say this (it is the first time I have ever done so) but I do believe this; the relationship between the disputing parties is so poor, Mediation would be pointless;

"...Should a replacement be found?..."—regardless of whether or not I was willing to Mediate, I would be unable to due to my recent joining of the Mediation Committee; to receive Mediation from a Mediator (not a Mediation Cabalist, a Mediator or MedCom member) as that would have to be directed via WP:RfM, and even then I would have to abstain due to a conflict of interest;

Therefore, I hope I've cleared up your understanding of my willingness and ability to Mediate this dispute, as well as my statement that throwing around accusations of bad faith is unproductive for Mediation, and that your acceptance will swiftly follow.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"you never do back them" We're getting nowhere fast here. I've backed them in my discussions with Levine2112 and in forums where I though it proper to do so.

Sorry to butt in, but Ronz does explain policy, prehaps not to the detail that some editors would like, but often certain editors go round and round so often that the explaination is miles behind. These editors have had it pointed out by others but they then target Ronz to explain, explain, explain again. Something which tests the patience of all editors. Shot info 01:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, no he doesn't; the only experiences I've had with Ronz is claims of Bad Faith that wither on the vine when substantial evidence to prove his claims are requested ~ Anthøny 01:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be given an example of such an experience. I don't recall any. --Ronz 01:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally I disagree, but rather than be labelled with "pro-Ronz" (to go with my Pro-Barrett and other "pro" titles that certain editors slap on others) I will bow out of the discussion. Apologies for the butting in. Shot info 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - you're highly welcome to join in; it's just that I'm getting rather impatient with this whole scenario (i.e., Ronz) ~ Anthøny 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"is one of the most detramental things you can do" Good point.

"the relationship between the disputing parties is so poor, Mediation would be pointless" Well, we both pretty much agree that it would be pretty much pointless. I guess that's enough.

So, it looks like some formal announcement about the mediation being stalled would be in order now, correct? --Ronz 00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes – I'll let the parties know ~ Anthøny 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All the actively contributing parties have been emailed ~ Anthøny 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Committee Nomination

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member!

On behalf of the mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an honour to serve Wikipedia in this role; my thanks for everybody's input ~ Anthøny 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

If you have a mo, pop by my sandbox and feel free to edit it. --Dweller 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done — Anthøny 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TT's RfA

I've completed it. Waiting acceptance. Then either you or TRM can transclude with pleasure. --Dweller 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done—Anthøny 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've got mail

email, that is.

The Transhumanist    18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Replied—Anthøny 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continue discussion?

I've tried to follow your instructions for continuing the discussion, and you've reverted it. Do you not want me continuing the discussion, not discussing anything here at all, or want me to use a different venue for discussion such as email? --Ronz 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that - you simply posted the discussion back over without adding your next comment; feel free to readd it if you have something more to say ~ Anthøny 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't fast enough for you. I'll wait until I have the reply done, then post it all at once. --Ronz 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Weren't fast enough - it was there for a good ten minutes ;-) take all the time you want, and be sure to revert me if I accidentally edit over you!

Regards,
Anthøny 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 75.144.0.89 needs blocking again

You recently blocked User:75.144.0.89 for extended vandalism. After the 48 hours was up he/she continued on the same as before. DreamGuy 03:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for brining this to my attention; I'll have a look, and see what measures are required for the circumstances, and proceed from there ~ Anthøny 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/AGK

Why did you full protect this page? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know :-( it's been unprotected now, but nevertheless my sincerest apologies - a full editing and move restriction for a page that is probably never going to be looked at again is unnecessary, and for this I'm sorry. I'll be sure to be extra careful in the future, but by the looks of it protection isn't my strong point ~ Anthøny 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Daniel

Just letting you know. It's not particularly troublesome for you to address, I assume. Michaelas¹⁰ 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the user's decision; Daniel is offline, and I'm not about to go out of my way to make him feel comfortable for something that does not affect the running of the encyclopedia. I don't appreciate users running around notifying me - I'm perfectly aware of the decision; a word of caution: just because a user says something is true, does not make it so ~ Anthøny 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof approval process

I've responded at my talk page. --Ssbohio 19:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your closing of {{UK TV viewing figures}} TfD

At Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 13#Template:UK TV viewing figures, it looks like you made a unilateral judgment call against consensus, without explaining why some (not all) of reasons for deletion are invalid. Incidentally, GMc (talk · contribs) has removed all transclusions and redirected the template. Thought you'd like to know, and if you don't agree with those actions, I'd like to take it to WP:DRV. –Pomte 20:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I always say (and this is no exception) that if a user has a problem with an Administrator Action of mine, simply revert me; I've got no problem – there's no need for WP:DRV, as I'm willing to go along with the rest of you: I'm now of the mind that my closure was more incorrect than correct.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for dispute resolution

Please read User_talk:Ronz#Formal_dispute_resolution_request_for_AGK. Respond as you see appropriate. --Ronz 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I'm a bit confused. Do you mean you want us to say what issues we want to talk about, or what our basic position is on the issues? John Smith's 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"...the first (Mediation Stage 1) encompasses statements by each party, detailing what they want to get out of Mediation, *why* and *how* their gaining of their wishes would benefit the page in question, as well as Wikipedia as a whole..." ... what your basic position on the issues are ~ Anthøny 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've very briefly listed my positions on the matters under dispute. John Smith's 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This AfD

Can I ask your reasoning for closing this as keep please? Per WP:DGFA verifiability and original research cannot be overridden even by consensus. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but that looks like a good close by AGK - there was a clear consensus to keep. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the headcount said keep, but the verifiability and original research problems have not been addressed, and cannot be overridden by consensus. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed answer - I was over at Meta; well, what can I say that Ryan hasn't - there was a clear consensus to Keep, and the WP:OR and WP:V concerns did not have a large amount of standing. By the way - Ryan, "sorry for butting in" ... your response here was great, and I always appreciate having editors backing me up ~ Anthøny 20:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Approximately 75% of the article is still unsourced, and the sources that have been provided for the remainder don't often verify what is being said in the article. How can the WP:V and WP:OR concerns not have standing under those circumstances? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if 25% of the article is sourced, that's not grounds for deletion. Why don't you go and try to find sources for the rest, or start a discussion on the talk page to cut bits out? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't delete unsourced material, we tag it with {{unreferenced}} (or for particular statements, {{fact}}), we don't delete it; or even better, find sources for it ~ Anthøny 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what is done with material that needs sources thank you, in case you hadn't noticed I do have over 12,000 edits. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since January, and no sources were provided until the AfD. The "sources" that were provided quite often don't match what is said in the article, as clearly stated in the AfD with specific examples. Sources do not exist for the overwhelming majority of the article. With regards to Ryan's comments: 75% being unsourced does not equal 25% sourced, as I stated in my previous message quite often the "sources" do not source what is in the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) sorry, but your edit count is irrelevant here - it's nothing like a measure of policy understanding; I stand by what I say before - this is a Keep, and I apologise if you feel otherwise but I'm unwilling to overturn the action ~ Anthøny 21:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reply was unnecessarily condescending. I'll take this to DRV then. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessarily condescending - I'm unsure how this works out; I'm explaining to you that I believe my closure was correct, and you are replying with how high your edit count is. Perhaps you should take a little less offense to comments than you currently do; people are not out to cause hurt to your feelings, they are trying to help you ~ Anthøny 21:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that reply was unnecessarily condescending to someone who is clearly not a new editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that your pride is hurt, and there's nothing I can do about that; be sure to call in and say hey to me soon - I'm not out to make enemies with you ~ Anthøny 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi back

Hello to you too. I've seen you around a lot, and to show my respect for your actions around here I just shamelessly ripped off your user page design- hope you don't mind. I hope to see you around, David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem! As I've said before, I've got no problem with it! Have a great day ~ Anthøny 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Beautiful Republic

Please restore the best (likely the latest) version of this article that has been speedy deleted several times. We have been discussing the deletion at WikiProject Contemporary Christian Music Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_Christian_music#This_Beautiful_Republic_and_Hypserstatic_Union, and I am one of several members of the WikiProject that will create an article that will meet notability standards. The band's latest song is starting to be played nationwide. You can restore it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary Christian music/This Beautiful Republic. If you need to restore it to userspace, then please create a second sandbox for me at User:Royalbroil/Sandbox2. Thanks!

Also, I haven't heard anything from you in response to my question about the Florida Photographic Collection. Royalbroil 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of response to Florida P. C. - I've been exceptionally busy; well, if you're willing to give it a shot (and it's a group effort), I can give you access to the deleted material, but only so long as it remains in the userspace until it satisfies WP:N, etc...; I'll post the restored material to User:Royalbroil/Sandbox2 ~ Anthøny 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to run it by you before starting the page? Royalbroil 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated; I'll watchlist it, in case you forget ;-) ~ Anthøny 22:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the file! I am disappointed that an article with borderline elements of notability was speedy deleted - but I know it is not at your hand. I'll add enough references and more notability elements to ensure that it will remain next time before I ask for your review/blessing. Hopefully I'll find enough data to get another DYK article out of it! Cheers! Royalbroil 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; the extra work may be too much to handle (I have one pair of hands ;-) but I'm willing to dig in and help out (possibly at #Transportation, which has fallen back into backlog after I began neglected it a few weeks ago) ~ Anthøny 08:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead

AGK is dead.

Am I? ~ Anthøny 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

If you don't mind my asking, why did you quit MedCom? ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony didn't - he merely moved himself from "active" to "emeriti or otherwise-inactive", because he is/will be inactive for a substantial period of time. Daniel 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Professional wrestling aerial techniques. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Speedily deleted the article" - I closed this discussion as a "Keep", not a delete (in addition, if I had closed as a "Delete", it would still not be a speedy deletion, which only refers to deletions made in accordance with WP:CSD).

Kind regards,
Anthøny 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The TestWiki

Hi, I was wonering if you could make me a sysop at the test wiki as anyone can become a sysop there and I noticed you had an account as User:Anthony cfc, cheers! The Sunshine Man 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its OK, all done by another user. Cheers --The Sunshine Man 10:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk Actions

I recently made a request for checkuser, and I saw your name listed as a clerk. I could not find how to list the case. Could you please make sure this is listed in the correct area: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TortureIsWrong. Thanks! Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 05:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony is currently on a Wikibreak, so he wasn't able to fufill this request. However, it was completed by someone else, as noted by the completion of the RFCU by Jpgordon. Daniel 05:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation summary

Hi AGK. Could you please summarise the result of the mediation here. Many thanks. If you prefer I'll post an email address. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings; in essence, the case is far to advanced for the Mediation Cabal (in my opinion), and I was unwilling to proceed in a case that was so devoid of any possibility of salvaging an amicable agreement. In addition, I was then accepted onto the Mediation Committee which meant I was not in a position to mediate for the Mediation Cabal.

Hopefully this response clears everything up; if you have any further queries, take a look at my contact page which lists some alternative mediums for getting in touch. Alternatively, you might want to ask Daniel (who is very kindly looking after this page), as he'll no doubt have some answers for you!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. --Ronz 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the redlinked contact link above was meant to direct here :) Cheers, Daniel 07:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies :-/ regards ~ Anthøny 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do I know you?

I believe that I know you from Gamedesire snooker, is it you or someone else? my username was HENK15G*D Many thanks --Krummy2 09:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't have any idea what you're talking about :P perhaps a case of mistaken identity? ~ Anthøny 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry --Krummy2 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a good holiday.

You deserve it.... The Sunshine Man is now Qst 18:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Btw, congrats on the new name! ~ Anthøny 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome.... The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Are you going to tell us when you're going to restart it, or shall I just ask for arbitration? You've pretty much ignored us for a whole month.... John Smith's 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony was obviously busy at this time, it is not compulsory for him to be on the MedCom. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather, he is on holiday. If you have further questions or comments during Anthony's absence, I respectfully ask that you do so by emailing me. Cheers, Daniel 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on holiday, but if you wish I could take some time out to progress the Mediation? ~ Anthøny 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab

Is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-14 Timeline of Military Operations in the 2006 Lebanon War still an active case? Vassyana 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I had to abstain from the case after becoming part of the MedCom, I did make arrangements for another mediator to take over. Apparently it never came into fruition, however... ~ Anthøny 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare authorship

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Smatprt who, in my opinion, has been intent on rewriting the Shakespeare Authorship article for the last year to promote his view that the Earl of Oxford was Shakespeare. I am only interested in article balance. See here for the list of his edits [[2]] (Felsommerfeld 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Hi. Sorry you've been dragged into this. It's true, I have an expertise and I make edits about what I know. Felsommerfeld wrote the following about this article: "*I mean why are we even having this discussion? The guy from Stratford wrote it all, period." If he had his way there would be no article on the authorship question at all. Since he cannot kill the article he is trying to edit out anything which challenges his position, including deleting whole sections without input or discussion. Now you know...the rest of the story.Smatprt 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Felsommerfeld's accusations of sockpuppetry have gone way too far. He knows, as do the actual long-time editors of this article (of which he is not), that Ben Jonson and I are two very different individuals that happen to see eye to eye on the authorship issue. Feel free to investigate, research or whatever you need to do to confirm this. For starters, BenJonson lives fulltime on the east coast, I on the west. Check our IP's or whatever (I am not that technical to know how you check, but I know you can and immediately clear this up and stop Felsommerfeld from his one-man war.Smatprt 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt is smart enough to use different IP addresses. Please check out the Shakespeare Authorship discussion about user BenJonson and read the evidence in detail. You can form your own opinion. (Felsommerfeld 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry for the delay guys, and also for this reply which will probably not be what you were looking for. Unfortunately, I will not be getting involved in this dispute - I prefer to remain neutral at all times, especially in corners of the encyclopedia were dispute or contraversy is present. As such, the only thing I can do is refer you to WP:SSP or WP:DR to seek further advice. Regards ~ Anthøny 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vacation

Enjoy your time off mate!

Thanks! ~ Anthøny 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Anthony

I'm currently seeking another editor to adopt me. I hope you don't take offence. Thank you so much for your time and expertise up until now. Capuchin 08:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems; sorry for my inactivity, and I hope your next adopter takes a better interest in you. Have a good one ~ Anthøny 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

.... ~ Rlest 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Replied ~ Anthøny 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday

Welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your holiday :) Daniel 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes - it was great ;-) ~ Anthøny 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Thought you maybe interested in this as I've spoke to you before and I think you're really kind, its up to you though. Rlest 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem my cup of tea (plus I'm snowed under with my WikiWorkload :-) but I'd like to make a recommendation: Phaedriel already has something along the lines of that project, and I'm sure her expertise would come in handy! ~ Anthøny 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VC

Hi Anthony. The VC page was getting unweildy, so I've split it into subpages. Now each student has a coaching page. We've got 5 active students, and I'm about to add 5 more (to keep all us co-coaches busy!). There's one student in particular (E), who has just failed an RfA, and I was hoping you'd focus on him for awhile. Please look over his RfA and contributions, and prepare a list of assignments for him to prepare him for his next RfA. Also, I've left him a message on his talk page, which you may be interested in reading (to ensure we are on the same wavelength). The Transhumanist    19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look in ;-) BTW, I'd still be interested in that email chat ~ Anthøny 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VandalSniper Approval

You've spelled my name wrong on the approval list. It's Isaac.

Thanks! Isaac 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies about that; now Y Done ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)