User talk:AGK/Archive/13

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] Vandal Sniper

Can you approve me? User:Crazycomputers/VandalSniper/Users Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for the delay - I'm sorting through the applications just now, and I'll handle yours as soon as. Anthøny ん 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - ages ago, actually :) Anthøny ん 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Golden Film

In January 2007, you reviewed the article Golden Film, and as a result the article was listed as a good article. The same article is currently a featured article candidate. Maybe you are interested in commenting to the article or supporting/opposing the candidacy. – Ilse@ 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; that was a long time ago, but I'll check into the FAC discussion when I can. Regards, Anthøny ん 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have the time. Your efforts are appreciated. – Ilse@ 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Anthøny ん 17:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcend T.sonic

It does not matter, whether the device is notable or not, it is "a cheap imitation of the crappy iPod", and is Taiwanese, no matter what happens users like butterflyofdoom will keep on trying to delete it. --Rsrikanth05 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter; every constructive entry to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated, and I wouldn't like to see a budding entry like yours permanently lost, simply because of a guideline. Whilst I am a strong supporter of that guideline, I also support an article being available to editors, in order for enough development to be undertaken in order for that guideline to be met - hence my suggestion about you working on the article in your userspace. Regards, Anthøny ん 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DemeTECH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

You may want to take a look at this user more closely. The only contributions they have made have been to promote DemeTech Corporation, a Florida based medical supply company. I would think that given this fact, and the fact that the username violates the username policy point 4, that it would constitute permanently blocking this username and encouraging the user to get another account. I just wanted to keep you informed; I am by no means attempting to tell you what to do. --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I'd actually just declined the unblock request literally the page-view before I received your message :) I definitely agree with you - the obvious conflict of interest (which, as you say, is also a WP:U violation) was my main incentive to decline. Anthøny ん 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles

In cleaning up the participants list, I noticed that you're still listed under Anthony_cfc. If you'd like to change that, please go to the participants list and update it. Thanks! Dr. Cash 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification ;) I would, normally, simply fix the name, but in light of my recent absence of the whole GA Reviewing thing, I've decided to remove myself at this time. I'll most likely make a return in the future, to lend a hand or two, but in the meanwhile there's no point on keeping myself on a member's list for a project I'm inactive at. Cheers, Anthøny ん 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Scott Boman

AGK, did you read the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Boman) in its entirety before closing it? (Perhaps I should have used the word "Disagree" instead of "Comment" for my replies within that discussion.) The editors who voted for "Keep" were unable to demonstrate "widespread press coverage" per WP:BIO other than providing articles that simply listed him as one of many candidates running in elections. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states the resolution of other similar "notability AfD" discussions:

• Municipal politicians: Mayors of towns and cities have generally survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville." City councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as councillors who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage, such as by acting as a spokesperson for a political issue or by breaking the law; having been covered only in local media does not generally satisfy the "significant press coverage" criterion for notability. Candidates for municipal election are not notable; these should only have articles if they already meet other criteria for inclusion.
• Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination). However, such candidates are permitted inclusion in a merged list of candidate biographies, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election.

--Sliposlop 18:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what would your

action be for a sock puppet user on the urban dead wiki, she won't stop commi gn bakc nadh as about 45 known bans i think. what do you think we should do cause she's stated she wont stop coming.--Cody6 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most likely, use the CheckUser tool (if that's permitted/installed on your Wiki) to impose a range block on the IP address the sockmaster is operating on. Anthøny 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We've perm banned her from the wiki, I don't think are wiki's admin, the urban dead wiki, know any further step of action. we keep perming her cause she made sock puppets to protest her day, month year and perm ban, now she's jsut coming back for the sake.

though we had worse, one had over 2k bans on them for socks. that wiki gets all kinds of drama.--Cody6 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

I request you to check the article Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties, I think the article created for a wrong intention. I have put deletion tag also, but requesting you to check it again. --Avinesh Jose 06:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You've created an AfD on the article, located here. Under WP:DELPRO#AFD, AfD discussions are closed by an Administrator after 5 days. Therefore, please wait for that AfD to be closed - in the meanwhile, I'm unwilling to do anything. Anthøny 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] appletrees 3RR report

thanks for dealing with the report so quickly, not the result I expected, nor the result I felt was deserved, but what can I say, I'm not an admin and you obviously know what you are doing, or I guess you wouldn't be an admin.

I would however ask you to reconsider your ruling, there were 3 reverts and one removal of information. The first edit that was the one in question even had "removed POV title" as the edit summary, so the user was aware that he was just removing information, rather than adding to wikipedia. When I read the 3RR page, it said "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page." so it seems to me, that it is not only reverts, but also deleting content, which is what the user did.

When you add to this, the fact that about 24hrs ago, the user got away with a 3RR report without a ban, and jumped straight back into another 4 edits in 24hours and 7mins, it seems he is trying to get as close as he can to 3RR, he considered himself to have made 3 reverts, therefore he waited 7 whole minutes to make what he considered to be his 4th. In my opinion, all 4 edits fall within what wikipedia considers to be reverts, with regards to the 3RR, in addition to this, the 7mins wait, shows he was trying to game the system, so with as much arse kissing as I can muster, I request that you reconsider, and smack him around the back of the head, with your banning stick.Sennen goroshi 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You wish for me to reconsider my block of him? Anthøny 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the result changed .... in the time it took me to type the above, which makes the above not really relevant. I guess I was a little abrasive with my comments, and shall try to stick to 1 revert and discussion, rather than diving in and helping contribute to these situations.

thanks.Sennen goroshi 15:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) oh and when I typed the above, I was under the impression that he was not going to be blocked.

No problems - I'd blocked him before I left any messages for you; you'd probably just not realised I'd blocked him yet. Anthøny 15:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what would your

action be for a sock puppet mistriss who we've had ot ban over 40 times incluidng the non perm bans.--Cody6 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated above: use the CheckUser tool to block her IP address, as well as permanently blocking her main account if you've not already done so. You could also install the ConfirmAccount Extension to MediaWiki (see that link for details), which will require any new accounts to be approved by a Bureaucrat. This should prevent the Sock Master/Mistress from creating any new accounts without authorisation. Anthøny 19:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?--Cody6 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, got the link wrong. See here for what I was suggesting. Anthøny 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What?--Cody6 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here! I'm suggesting you install that suggestion. If you're confused, please be a little more specific over what you don't understand, rather than simply replying with "what" and "huh?" - it is very irritating. Anthøny 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We've permed her, and i'm o admin--Cody6 21:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, best of luck. There's nothing more I can do - after all, it's not my Wiki, and I'm not a member of it. Anthøny 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsider to Unblock Lear 21

The actions leading to the block of user:Lear 21 are unjustified and baseless. There has been NO vandalism. There has been NO violating of 3RR Rule. There has been neither disruptive editing, apart from reinserting monthlong established sourced content at the Berlin article. The revert has also been credibly reasoned. There has been nothing done, justifying any blocking and neither an "out of proportion" one week block.

Instead the blocking admin Jossi is involved in a conflict of interest, defending and reverting his edit [1] undiscussed. In this case the admin reinserts an improper citation, while extending the blocking of user Lear without justification. Unprotect this account as soon as possible, Delete every accusation from this talk page and give a straight warning to the admin Jossi to his abusive behaviour. I will keep the right of editing anonymously in the meantime. Thanks in advance. Lear 21

If you attempt to edit Wikipedia again, and in doing so evading your block, I will block your IP address and reset the block on your main account. Anthøny 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I´m a well established editor with a highly credible, open record and a history of quality editing.

I wonder why your tone is inappropiately harsh. My editing is comprehensible and well argued. There is no problem of reverting a misjudgement by another admin. The admin Jossi got highly emotionally involved in this issue because of previous tensions with the user Lear 21 and is therefore in a conflict of interest. The Berlin version Jossi is defending violates the manual of style (see Berlin discussion) and this remains true whatever decisions are made. all the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.24.54 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All the best to you too. Anthøny 20:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you could, please keep an eye...

... on Berlin and European Community, as blocked user Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has used numerous IPs to evade his block and continue edit-warring. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Lear_21. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I'd be glad to. Thanks for bring it to my attention. Anthøny 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This is interesting, on even further review. The IP is definitely not blatantly vandalising. He is just making controversial edits on a controversial subject, and everyone is disagreeing with him, but I'm not sure. I think full protection is warranted so that discussion can occur. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So it's vandalism and disputes it was protected for... interesting - this article definitely gets a lot of attention :) Anthøny 07:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There waas insufficient vandalism to merit protection, hence the reason for the protection is a dispute. WP:PROT clearly states that it should be full-protected, to comply with Wikimedia Foundation core polices about anonymous editing. Daniel 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose. Anthøny 08:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI#Block review

WP:ANI#Block review is pertinent to you. --Eyrian 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Durova (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Anthøny 09:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I left a note on her talk page, as well. --Eyrian 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, I do think that the actions taken in that case may have been ill-advised, but I really hope that it doesn't become a personal thing. I don't think you're a bad administrator; much to the contrary, it looks like you do a lot of important work keeping the encyclopedia free of disruption. As someone who's been "on the line" (though perhaps less than some), I can understand that sometimes you really don't want to give a troll or vandal any recognition. --Eyrian 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your understanding - it is really appreciated. I suppose it comes as a surprise that Durova (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)'s block has been questioned: he is one of the Administrators I hold in the highest regard, but then again sock puppetry is one of the hardest cases a sysop. can identify. Again, your patience with this matter is appreciated: the only way this issue is going to be resolved is for Durova to come online. Cheers, Anthøny 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN3

I replied at AN3. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Anthøny 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now at ANI [2] Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Anthøny 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFM/Islamphobia

This RFM is still active, although a successful end may be off in the distance (though we are making some progress). MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I was just curious, having been trawling through the various active cases :) Cheers, Anthøny 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user

Is this ok?--Snakese 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, I think this is from User:Professional Deletionist although s/he hasn't said so. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs)
18:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that looks to be acceptable per WP:USERNAME. Good luck in your new account - remember, don't save anything that won't improve the article! Anthøny 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UserNames

I see you've blocked User:Imgayreallygay. That sounds reasonable to me. However, I had some difficulties blocking a similar name: User:AnarcistPig while back. Both names are self-deprecating, but AnarcistPig survived a bad name nomination. Thoughts? Rklawton 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting one. The name is most probably a violation, and it doesn't look at though the account's contributions have been particuarly helpful (indeed, the photograph of the dead, slaughtered pigs on his/her userpage is not a good sign, either), but an outright block would be unfair: we want to encourage, not discourage, people to contribute to Wikipedia.

My recommended course of action would be in the first instance have a quiet word with the user, informing him of the WP:CHU (and WP:CHU/U) process(es), and hinting that it would be beneficial to his reputation and to the encyclopedia for him to post a request there. If no ground is bought from that, the next port of call should be to re-nominate the name at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, and failing a block as a result of a repeat of such a discussion, raise the matter on WP:AN/I. Anthøny 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/Incidents#Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs • logs)'s vandalism and slurs

Hello AGK. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/Incidents#Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs • logs)'s vandalism and slurs regarding Sennen goroshi's vandalism and slurs. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. Appletrees 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've posted my opinion there. Anthøny 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:MOBY

Hello. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:MOBY that you closed. I don't think the article was userfied. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that :) well, the MfD was originally closed as a "Keep" anyway so there's no adapting necessary. Anthøny 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Reddi/Dynamic Theory of Gravity

I was wondering if in the future you could elaborate just a bit more on the reason for deleting, even if it appears obvious. I am not disputing this in the slightest, I am just offering some constructive criticism. Regards.--12 Noon 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem - I'd be glad to accommodate your concerns. Generally, I operate in closure of deletion debates by simply posting my decision on the MfD page, and if the closure was complex then I accompany that with an explanation. However, I'll make a point of closing the gap between simple and complex decisions, in order to comply with your request. Anthøny 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against Vandalism...

Huh, I coulda sworn I did lol. I must not have cuz I was in kind of a hurry. sorry. --Crash Underride 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems ;) just bear it in mind in future! Cheers, Anthøny 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Oli Filth

Hi. Are you sure you meant to leave me that message on my talk page? I haven't reported that user! Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Check out your talk page, I've left another apology and an explanation there. Again, apologies! Anthøny 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good friend100

What's your thought about this user? I know you were considering upgrading to an indefblock depending on the result of the ANI discussion. Some objections have been raised, though I personally am uncertain of their merit. What do you think? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears we have some disagreement from another admin, namely Penwhale [3]. Perhaps we should consider arbitration. What do you think? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Penwhale - ArbCom seems like the best course of action. Anthøny 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're prepared to go ahead with that, I'll be ready to present my case. Spartaz seems to think it's too soon, though. I dunno what to think, myself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to start preliminary preperations for an RfArb, such as gathering relevant diff. links, discussion links, etc... However, you may wish to leave a few days (as advised by Spartaz) before filing an Arbitration request - some "breathing space" always helps to put things a little more into context. Anthøny 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text alignment

Hi - dunno what's causing this but your talkpage looks odd in some browsers. Its fine in Safari and Firefox, but IE7 and Opera seem to be displaying all the text as center-aligned. Dunno what part of the code for it is causing that so not sure how to fix it. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know as it prob looks fine on the browser you're using. WjBscribe 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine in Firefox. I'll have a look - I think it's something to do with the Header... Anthøny 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed :) Anthøny 17:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317

Hi, AGK. I come here to ask about the recent achieving AN/Incident. I filed a report regarding User:Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors and racial slurs. That case is still not done yet, and I've not got any notice from any admins again. Do you know why the sysop, User:Misza13 move my report and the discussion [4] to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317. It is not fair and unreasonable. Were there any decision reached without any notice to me, or removed by accident? Please give me a reason and if there is no plausible explanation, please restore it to the incident page. And you were very quick to judge my 3rr violation as soon as Sennen goroshi reported, but has not decided on my report of whether Sennen goroshi get a block and punishment or not. I want to know why. That seems unfair to me. Thanks. --Appletrees 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, the "I got blocked so so should s/he" line isn't relevant here; blocks are implemented to prevent (further) damage to Wikipedia. Secondly, Misza13 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) did not archive your discussion, but his bot, MiszaBot1 (tasks • contribs • actions log • block log • flag log • makebot) , which automatically archives threads not edited in more than 24 hours. If you wish to resume discussion, feel free to restore the thread yourself. Anthøny 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit that my report is too long and contains some irrelevant matter for the report, but I think you don't apply same rule. I understand that administrators don't like noises but I file a report in a formal way, and then it was deleted out of nowhere. I was judged by my history for further edit warrings. You cared my recent history and don't care about his history at all? That is unfair. With suitable warning or action by sysops, he can't do the behavior again, that is for future prevention. Supposed that I gave you a slur, and reverted your talk page to give a humiliation, then would I be free from any judge? That doesn't add up. You seem to think of me acting absurd. Ok, I will repost it by myself for sure. --Appletrees 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll have a look at the behaviour in due course. Anthøny 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You forgot to block..

There are plenty of other inappropriate usernames you forgot to block, they are in Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over.--Snakese 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "forgetting" to do it - I only block when I see a WP:UAA request, or upon private mail request. Also, that word implies that it's my duty to block every one of those usernames ... a bit of a large feat :) Anthøny 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diavlog

I was surprised to see that the result was no consensus. None of the Keep votes presented evidence or in any way countered the valid reasons for nomination. What factored into your conclusion? Pdelongchamp 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that both sides presented evidence that resulted in no notable difference between the arguments. As such, I closed the discussion as "No Consensus". Anthøny 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just reread the discussion. The keep side didn't present evidence. Thanks to the RfD, the article now contains 4 blog references and one list serve reference but I'm still not clear on how you came to a conclusion of no consensus. Pdelongchamp 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just explained how I came to a conclusion of No Consensus: having analysed the arguments presented, I concluded that there was no definitive advantage on either side and, in accordance with policy, I concluded as required. Anthøny 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your reasoning. Let me phrase it this way, if the reasoning behind the RfD was valid, and the "Keep" side didn't provide any evidence against the RfD reasoning, why should the result be "No Consensus"? Could you link to the policy you are referencing? Thanks, I'm mostly trying to understand because the outcome seemed like it was just a vote count as opposed to a review of the discussion. Pdelongchamp 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it wasn't a !vote count - that's a big no-no :) the policy I was referring to was Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators (which may be a guideline, I've not brushed up on the specifics in a few weeks!). As I've said, the "Keep" argument did present evidence - I think this simply boils down to a difference in opinion between you and I. Anthøny 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did some reading on it. I think the only remaining question for me is, what exactly did the Keep present to counter the RfD reasoning that you consider to be evidence? Pdelongchamp 21:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to dash at the moment, but I'll deal with your enquiry as soon as I can. Anthøny 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

...:) Pdelongchamp 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

They made three key points, which whilst slightly weaker than the "Delete" argument, still "countered" it enough for me to have doubts about closing to either side. If you wish for me to list the points, I will, but they're plain to see at the AfD page (linked, above). Anthøny 16:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason the article was nominated is that it was a neologism and that there was no evidence that it was notable. I understand their key points but you still haven't explained what evidence they presented to counter the RfD that the article is unsourced and doesn't assert it's notability. It still seems like it was a vote count. Pdelongchamp 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be covering old ground, again. It wasn't a vote count, I don't even count the number of !votes cast in an XfD (although some Administrators do, finding it a useful tool in measuring consensus). I simply found that both sides presented roughly equal arguments. You may believe that the "Keep" arguments were generally invalid, but I simply thought otherwise. I hope you understand? Anthøny 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

The matter should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. If someone questions an AfD decision, the closing admin gives reasons. If the reasons are not to the satisfaction of the questioner then the matter should be referred to DRV. Having looked at the AfD and at the article I feel it was inappropriate that the AfD was closed as No Consensus as there was a clear consensus to either delete or redirect the article. The assertions used by the three people who wanted to keep the article were that the word is used, therefore it is worthy of an article - despite the only sources being blogs. The closing admin should be aware of WP:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. AGK is a highly respected and busy member of the Wiki community and sometimes mistakes occur. There's no blame and no shame here. But this really should be moved to DRV, and it would be more appropriate if AGK did that himself. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is silly of me. I should have dealt with this as soon as I could. DRV sounds like a good path, so expect a post there soon enough... Anthøny 13:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to proceed to DRV, but I would be advising that I now feel, after due consideration following the original complaint, that the correct closure of the discussion should have been "Delete", and that my original decision was incorrect. Would Pdelongchamp (talk • contribs • logs) like to give input on this? Anthøny 18:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-closed the AfD. I'm still fully supportive of any move forward to WP:DRV, for transparency purposes, if required. Anthøny 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need to move the discussion to DRV. Well handled and thanks to everyone involved. Pdelongchamp 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam

Question. That section is explained as being used to "list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation", which I believe my contributions qualify as. Why are they (along with remarks by User:A Man In Black and User:Jtrainor) being removed and placed on a discussion page that is not accessible from the main RfM page? I don't get it, what's the purpose of that section if we're not supposed to put anything in it?

• Main RfM page
• this page cannot be accessed from the main RfM page.

If that content really doesn't belong on the main RfM page (I'd suggest that section be reworded, then; it's misleading in its current iteration), then shouldn't it at least go on the talk page, which -can- be accessed from the page? MalikCarr 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to initiate discussion over which of the content I moved is actually issues. Some of it seems like conduct matters, which the Mediation Committee does not handle. Anthøny 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't? I did not know that... well, anyway, as long as the committee is able to digest that information for what it's worth, I can't really raise any complaints about it. MalikCarr 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not :) note, I've taken on your case. Anthøny 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diavlog

Hi,

If this helps.

Diavlog is on Urban Dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=diavlog

and diavlogs are on NY Times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/new-york-times

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/ads/

http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003566.php

Hope this helps.

There is no other way to describe a diavlog.

Good luck. Keep up the good work.

-Pookie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.38.60 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The links you have provided are not reliable, as set out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources: the first is from Urban dictionary, an disorganised and user-contributed collection of "entries", none of which (or, at least, the Diavlog isn't) are backed up by Reliable Sources. The "articles" are from non-Notable sites, not the New York Times. Thank you for your assistance, anyway. Anthøny 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on my talk page?

You gave me a boilerplate warning on my talk about removing speedy notices. I removed the speedy notice on that article as an admin who decided it did not meet speedy deletion criteria. I'm sure it was just a misunderstanding, but don't forget to do a quick due diligence before warning users. Cheers! --Ginkgo100^talk 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded and apologised at User talk:Ginkgo100. Anthøny 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a thief!

Muhaaaa :). Best wishes, Qst 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I keep saying, I have no problem with you using my stuff! I really don't ask for any credits at all, I don't think Wikipedia should be about all this nonsense-uptightness about userpages. Of course, Daniel may not be in the same school of thought, but we're all different. Thanks, anyway ;) Anthøny 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, but you deserve to be thanked :) Qst 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcend T.sonic

You said that the article needed notability, what all do I need for that? --Rsrikanth05 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to read Wikipedia:Notability, which outlines the basic standards for a Wikipedia article to be considered Notable (remember, anything which fails this is liable for deletion). Notability itself is established through the provision of reliable sources (check out that link for information). Reliable sources also establish the Verifiability of the content of the article - that is, that the content is true. I hope this answers your questions - if it doesn't, or you don't find all the information in those links you're looking for, feel free to drop me another note, post-haste. Kind regards, Anthøny 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Anthøny 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of User:AGK/Blocked/3RR and User:AGK/Blocked, etc.

Hi! I'm a member of WP:UW working on user warning template standardization. The two pages I named above came to my notice because they are included in Category:User warning templates. We request your assistance in preserving this category as containing pages in the template namespace only.

We are using this category as a basis for deleting obsolete user warning templates, and we are trying to avoid getting sandbox and user namespace templates caught up in the effort. Similar edits have been made to the user namespace templates of other users.

I would have gone ahead and made the changes so as not to trouble you, while leaving a note on your talkpage, but the pages are protected.

It's a rather unusual protection because it is a high-risk-template protection for pages not in the template namespace, but in the user namespace. High-risk template protection is intended for templates identified by the community as critical to Wikipedia. Applying this to a page within the user namespace is contrary to this guideline because the page is owned by a user, rather than the community, and thereby definitionally would be very unlikely to be important to the community. Regardless, such templates would ideally be identified by WP:UW.

Also, please consider that the pages named above are block templates. There is a separate category for block templates; however, user warning templates category contains no block templates.

I'd be interested in discussion the protection status of these pages. I would suggest, based only on my first impression, that you consider unblocking the pages. Regardless, please remove Category:User warning templates from the pages.

Warm regards. Bsherr 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good day and thanks for getting in touch. I'd be more than happy to comply with your requests. I wasn't aware of the fact that the "HRT" status applied only (except in special circumstances) to templates in the actual Temp. namespace - thanks for that pointer ;) I protected the template as a routine thing - a few of my userspace pages are protected, and I thought that a template that's going to be placed on a fair few talk pages may as well be too.

Anyway, I'll proceed to remove the HRT templates from the relevant pages, and also remove the pages from the User Warning category (on that note, I didn't think for a second that there'd be a separate category for block templates). Hopefully this answers every request you made ;) Cheers, Anthøny 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{AN3}}

Good job on the templates, can you translate the non english stuff? Best, Mercury 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The non-english stuff...? Anthøny 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're talking about {{lorem ipsum}}. It's just used on Wikipedia to represent "example text". It doesn't actually mean anything (well, it can be translated but it's irrelevant to the template). Anthøny 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well thats just confusing. :) Mercury 23:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's used all over Wikipedia! I'm surprised you haven't seen it :) well, if you prefer I can replace it with "example text..." if you want. Anthøny 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UpDown (talk · contribs), Charles (talk · contribs)

Resolved.

I see you blocked UpDown on the strength of a complaint from User:Charles. At a glance it would appear he's just as bad. Have you blocked him also? Regards, David Lauder 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was just looking at that :) watch this space... Anthøny 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a similar history of severe edit warring; he's now Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.. Anthøny 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair, either both or none. 31 hours seems excessive, though. Its not as though some obscure Hanoverian princess could be regarded as a controversial article! Regards, David Lauder 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "she got 31 hours, so should he" situation :) normally, I'd concur regarding the block lengths, but in this instance I believe that a longer block length is necessary in order to protect the articles affected by their edit warring. Anthøny 21:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've been looking into Charles' unblock request and on his user talk page he has given what seem to me to be adequate assurances that he will not be disruptive. I'm inclined to shorten or unblock both users because I think there is good reason to suppose that both were editing in good faith and now realise that they had overstepped the mark. Sam Blacketer 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a shortening in Charles' case, but with regards to UpDown I'm a little more hesitant. That user appears to be the main cause of the disruption, and I'd be nervous about restoring his/her edit access so early. Nevertheless, I'll leave it to your best judgement ;) Anthøny 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rudget, who has been constructive in this dispute, seems to be of the same mind. I am going to shorten Charles' block and ask UpDown for some similar assurances. Sam Blacketer 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your efforts in the matter ;) Anthøny 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcend T.sonic

User:Rsrikanth05/Transcend T.sonicHave a look. This is the asme as it was befor being deleted, now I am waiting for your response, and also looking for more information online, and from Transcend itself. --Rsrikanth05 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine thus far, but you need to find reliable sources for the article, which in turn establish Verifiability and Notability. Anthøny 12:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)