User talk:AGK/Archive/14

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] IRC conversation

Here are the links, you'll know what I'm talking about :)

• Not really offensive, but still a mild insult
• Offensive to an editor who I happen to know and respect
• Here

He was blocked some time back for this remark, too. Qst (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia RfM

The case is a bit old but not stale, I don't need help in mediating it at this time, and I see a closure sometime soon since progress has been made on it. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update ;) by the way, it's an RfM not an RfC. Anthøny 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam archive lost?

I've been loosely following this mediation discussion and from time to time the history indicates content moved to Archive 1 but I find very little there. I view any revisions content from the history page. – My question is this interesting (not) archiving process typical and if so when? – Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 00:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That was a clerical slip-up of mine - I had removed the content from the Mediation Location, but not placed it in the archive. Thank you very much for pointing that out - I'll access the history and finish the archiving process immediately. Cheers, Anthøny 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and I've done the edit on you behalf. – Conrad T. Pino 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh bugger, I forgot again! You have my apologies, I had to answer the messages below↓, and it just went out of my mind :) thanks for the edit, anyway. Anthøny 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and participants returned before my edit placing Archive 1 on main talk page so your watch list may not reflect your expecation for now. – Conrad T. Pino 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Could you advise me as to how to handle user:Lear21, he is disrupting / vandalising the European Union article because he can't get his own way, he simply will not accept the consensus or even compromise - his usual phrase is "it will stay in the article". Seeing that you have reviewed his past activities might I ask you for advice? Thanks in advance SouthernElectric 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

User SouthernElectric abuses the terms "disrupting" & "vandalising" for his agenda. A current discussion about the inclusion of content can´t suggest a consensus at all. At least 3 users reject the proposals by SouthernElectric. Lear 21 11:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves, as anyone who cares to pick their way through the Talk:European Union (various discussions regarding sport) page and the edit history of the article will see. By the way Lear, if I have to take your conduct to an administrator via private email I will. SouthernElectric 11:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think vandalising is too large a word, he is disrupting the process of finding consensus though by be very, very reluctant to compromise. Arnoutf 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a relatively new editor to the EU page I have been quite offended also by the user Lear21's attitude that it was his personal page and that he had more of a say than any other editor. I was told I had an insufficient EU background to edit the page. For such an important article for Wikipedia, Lear's uncompromising attitude has been particularly damaging to the progress that can be made. Please help us!! --Simonski 15:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The content approved by Lear 21 is supported by 4 editors, tolerated by 2 and rejected (though not entirely) by 3. Nothing of a bias here. Lear 21 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, the facts of what has been said on the relivant talk page speak for themselves. SouthernElectric 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to seek dispute resolution on this. You might want to open a Request for Comment, or seek a third opinion. Informal Mediation would be a good idea, failing that. However, the important thing to remember is that you need to approach Dispute Resolution with an open mind, and not descend into arguing, or you'll never get anywhere. With regards to the original enquiry, there has clearly been some poor conduct on several part:

• Simonclamb, this revert wasn't a very good idea. In future, you'd be better off going to Lear's user talk page and offering discussion, or failing that asking a neutral third party to revert (perhaps on IRC). Requesting protection would also have been a wise choice.
• Lear 21, you are disrupting this article. You have attempted to introduce this edit numerous times, including that linked occasion and here. The same applies here - Simon is reverting you, stating that you're going against consensus. Whilst I've get to see any consensus (note, I'm not denying its existence, I just haven't went to look for it), if it does exist, you don't go against it: instead, challenge it by starting discussion on the article's talk page, to re-establish the consensus (as defined here).
• Southern Electric, your reverts are just adding to the problem (e.g. [1], [2]). What I've said above applies to you, too. If a user is repeatedly adding multiple entries and your reverts fail to stem them, start discussion on their talk page or file a WP:RFPP report, or one at WP:AN3.

In summary, you guys need to seek Dispute Resolution (that link will provide further explanation). You must also refrain from edit warring, as it hinders rather than helps the improvement of the article, and in fact disrupts Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to revert, but don't do it repeatedly - if your first or second doesn't stop the introduction of the content you don't want to the article, try another method, and establish consensus over the entry. In all, bear in mind that: (a) you must work together towards improving the article, and (b) just because you think you're correct, doesn't mean you are - keep an open mind on (and listen to) other's opinions, and don't push your opinion and POV into the article through reverts. Anthøny 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that locking the page isn't simply escalating matters, consolidating entrenched positions and annoying everyone into the bargain? Sandpiper 09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the parties involved have demonstrated an inability to edit this article whilst in dispute without causing disruption. Perhaps when the Dispute Resolution in this matter gets under way, and the Parties in question begin to co-operate, then the article can be unprotected. Anthøny 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you locked it for a week. I find it difficult to imagine this will be resolved within that time. In the meanwhile work on the page is suspended, and I have to say people stopped discussing the problem on the talk page. I remain unconvinced of the benefits of locking a page before a clear pattern has emerged of which parties support which edits by their editing actions. Sandpiper 01:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Batteries

Hi. You OK? I've had an email from a user requesting help with this article. I've taken a look at the version you speedied. There's arguably some notability claims in the article. I wondered if you'd consider undeleting it and listing it at AfD. A relevant WikiProject (I assume there'll be at least one) will also be able to give useful input at the AfD and/or improve the article. NB I've not done this myself because I think it discourteous to undo other admins' "tool-work" unless they're on Wikibreak (+ a dash of IAR where common sense dictates!) --Dweller 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It's an odd one. I deleted it under the Criteria for S. Deletion, but that may have been a close call on my behalf, and one that I would not be adverse to having overturned. However, it is clear from the user's email to me (your email may have been along the same lines - my class need this, etc...?) that the user is utilising Wikipedia as a web host, which is obviously a vio. of WP:NOT. Having said that, the CSD does not cover WP:NOT violations, and such pages should be listed at WP:AFD or the other relevant XfD. Perhaps that should be our next move?

Something you might be interested in, I have offered the user the source content so that s/he may host the article in an external hosting site, or even a tool like blogger.com. Anyway, I leave it up to you to make the intermediate and immediate call, although (per my Admin. Policy) I grant you full permission (not that you need it, of course!) to overturn my action if you see fit. Anthøny 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also received an E-mail from the user who created the article, and it seems the E-mail I received was similar to the ones mentioned above. Just so you know AGK, the user also left a posting on your talk page in a header further up, as shown here. With the restoration mentioned above, I'll also let you handle it. Regards. Acalamari 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply, above :) Anthøny 17:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Don't forget to remove the speedy tag! :) Acalamari 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for the reminder ;) Cheers, Anthøny 18:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also received an unsolicited e-mail from the user who created the article, asking for my intervention (and I have no idea why or how I was selected for these attentions). Unfortunately for the user, my first impulse is to delete the article and salt it because the creator seems to be intent on wasting everyone's time and energy for an article of marginal utility without sources or apparent notability, and I have said approximately this on its talk page. I note, however, that you have taken an interest in this and I will gladly defer to your judgment; you apparently know more than I do about this situation. Your comments would be very welcome and I'd appreciate your indicating what you think the appropriate course of action would be. Accounting4Taste 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as you - I don't think this article is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, per a number of policies (namely, WP:NOTE and WP:V). Since we seem to be of the same opinion on this - i.e., keep it deleted - then I don't see any reason to defer the decision to me :) I suppose you'd be happy to handle it? Anthøny 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Best of luck next time ;) Anthøny 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007

Hello. Did you wish to run in the 2007 Arbcom elections? Or did you decide to withdraw? The reason I ask is because you created a candidate page here, but did not transclude it onto the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements, which is propbably why no one has asked you questions yet. Please reply as soon as possible. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm posting your statement so that you're included in the process. If you wish to withdraw, you may remove your statement at any time. Thank you. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add the statement yet. Anthøny 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed. Forgive the confusion. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed :) thanks for doing it anyway, I appreciate the thought! Anthøny 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I want to clarify something...

I did not vandalize that WW2 page, I was trying to revert vandalism and I accidentally re-inserted it. Sorry.--Neverquick 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Since you had (mistakenly) kept Vandalism in the article, it appeared that you were attempting to disguise your edits as reverts (an all too common sight nowadays, I'm afraid). Anyway, no harm done ;) you might want to look into installing one of the CVU's revert tools to aid reverting? Anthøny 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into that, cause I do more reverting than everything else, but only in about 1-hour bursts from school. Thanks for removing the warning!--Neverquick 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

Sorry to hear it never pulled through. I wasn't convinced in the slightest by certain oppose/neutral (and jump-between) voters, and by the sounds of it neither are a lot of people. Best of luck next time, V.T. Anthøny 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our mediation

Can you please do something with User:Greggerr, after all he voted whilst not being part of the mediation, and left no comments as well as stating his position. Does that mean his votes are invalid?--Kuban Cossack 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've handled the matter. Anthøny 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Hi, please be online. :) -- Cat ^chi? 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the RfArb. I'll gather my thoughts and head over. Anthøny 21:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Howdy Anthony, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming on mediawiki.org

Hi AGK, I've changed your account name on mediawiki.org as requested. You might want to adapt some links on your 'header' subpage(s) now. Cheers --:Bdk: 00:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help ;) Anthøny 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC?

Care to pop over there for a chat? —Qst 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

:) shall do. Anthøny 19:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response ;) —Qst 19:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Tang Yuhan

Hi Anthony, I'm afraid I'm rather unhappy with your closure of this AfD, particularly with the statement "Whilst the addition of citations is commendable, unfortunately the fact that they are in Chinese means that cannot be confirmed as Reliable Sources."

The fact that sources are in Chinese does not mean that they cannot be confirmed as reliable sources; it only means that they cannot be confirmed by people who don't read Chinese. WP:RSUE says:

"English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality".

It emphatically does not say that non-English-language sources should be treated as less reliable and verifiable than English language ones. Please could you familiarise yourself with this information about systemic bias.

I would also point out that the only people who supported deletion of this article were the nominator, who include this in his comments:

"any Chinese doctor who also has a Leuven diploma and has passed one of the three British exams is more than probably notable in China, but unfortunately not really in the English-speaking world"

and another editor who made no arguments. The nominator accepted that the subject is probably more than notable in China, which is more than enough notabilty to be accepted by Wikipedia.

Please reconsider your decision. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I would be glad to reconsider my decision - I'll get back to you, once I've had a chance to review the material in question. Anthøny 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, I'm struggling to conclude either way here. I've asked an independent Administrator to review the situation, and I should get back to you within the hour. Anthøny 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no response - I think he's forgotten :) thanks for your patience to date, I'll have you an answer as soon as possible. Anthøny 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Neo-Jay has rather pre-empted this conversation by going to DRV. Please note that we both came to the conclusion that this needed reviewing independently - we haven't been in contact with each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems, thanks for the notification. Anthøny 09:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA (Random832)

Not a problem. Best of luck with the Tools! Anthøny 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Arbitration

Just a reminder... in case you'd forgotten about it. Anthøny 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't but my section is already quite long. Care to add your comment to the arbcom case? -- Cat ^chi? 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look through the dispute; if I have anything to add, I'll do so ASAP ;) Anthøny 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan

Hi, I noticed that you deleted Tang Yuhan. But the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan was just 1 for keep and 2 for delete. This cannot be interpreted as consensus. The article should be kept as non-consensus in the deletion discussion. And Chinese sources are valid reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). It can be confirmed by other Wikipedian who can understand Chinese language. And the Chinese sources have been translated in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan. English-speaking editors can also read them. I have request to review this deletion. You may participate it. Thanks.--Neo-Jay (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comment there. Anthøny 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ringworm children affair

You requested that someone list this page on the copyvio page. This has not been done. Could you please take another look at the "keep" decision? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still early days - the best course of action here would be to list this on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, rather than dive right at the deep end and move to Delete. Anthøny 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Kirby

Hi Anthony. Ultimately, it's over to you, but I'm not unblocking this guy any time soon. This is his second indefinite block and third overall block. On his last block of 1 week, he persisted in following me across other wikis[3] and did so again this time. From ANI and from my talk page, he's largely worn out the patience of the community. You might also want to check in with User:Chaser and examine the previous account's edit history. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alison; thanks for taking the time to get in touch. I'm not yet thinking of whether to block or unblock - I'm still in early-days discussion with him, and getting a feel for his general attitude and how he responds to my initial posts. However, I'll be sure to keep you posted, and if you wish I'll bring you in for input in the final decision, although I suppose your stance is rather plain :) I suppose for now it's just a case of watch this space. Anthøny 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, John Reaves has now denied his third unblock request, and has fully protected his talk page. I'm one of the most AGFy admins there is, but .... you sure you want to go there?? - Alison ^❤ 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it over email. I admit there's not much in his favour, but I'll have a chat with him. In all honesty, however, unblocking looks fairly unlikely now... Anthøny 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Good plan. Note that myself, Chaser and three other editors have been working with this guy for almost a month now and still no progress whatsoever. I've just unprotected his talk page to allow dialog but feel free to put it back on once he gets abusive (and he will) - Alison ^❤ 17:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) Did he respond the same way? The apparently genuine remorse...? It looks as though he's finally woken up to his idiocy after the indefinite block, and actually does want another chance... Optimistic, to say the least, but possible. Anthøny 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be action-conflicting all over the place :) that talk page (I unprotected it at the same time as you), here... ;-) Anthøny 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh - great minds and all that :) Well, Chaser did the first indef, then tried to mentor the guy. Then I showed up. Then there was the homophobic attacks upon another editor, plus other rampant incivility. No article edits whatsoever. Then I blocked him for a week. Had to prot the talk page eventually. He then started hounding me over on ga.wikipedia. When the week-long block ended, he made a half-hearted attempt to edit articles, made one or two edits, then got back to the business in hand; harassing other editors on talk page. Numerous editors from the gamer articles tried to reason with him, but he just got snarky with them. People gave up in disgust. Then there was the jokes-on-the-talk-page thing. I ended up archiving his talk page and calling a halt to it. Then yesterday, he brought a 'friend' on-board. They were in phone contact and immediately ran amok on talk pages yet again. When called on it by numerous editors, he got rude and aggressive. This resulted in his current indef. His friend was blocked for 24 hours - Alison ^❤ 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce) Not very impressive, then? Well, I must admit I'm getting less and less hopeful as time goes by with this guy, but then again he doesn't appear to have been as remorseful as this before, which is cause for a little hope. Anthøny 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

errm, he was exactly that remorseful before, which was why Chaser unblocked the first time. He'll keep pleading and wearing everyone down. Honestly - check his talk page history, then check this. See? I'm not normally this strident about a block, but seriously - Alison ^❤ 18:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware he was like that before... Don't worry, I shan't be unblocking. Anthøny 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)