User talk:AGK/Archive/15

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] Thanks for modifying the protected pages

Been a couple weeks, but I wanted to follow up to thank you for making the modifications to the user block template subpages in your user space. Much appreciated the reply! Bsherr (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem ;) Anthøny 16:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Here is the story; electric transportation is a new business here in the usa There has been and still is a problem with scam sellers of cheap chinese scooters making a fast buck then dissapearing. Daniel car is one of those people. www.fun-ev.com He has no business, a ' quickie ' website and "started " a couple months ago w 4 units and is selling at a fraction above cost. No legitimate dealer would do this, he sells from his garage and offers a 2 week warranty !. This is proof he is trying to dump these for a quick buck and dissapear. USA has seen all this before and is still suffering from the perception that all e-scooters are junk.

I made an ametueurish attempt to delete his listing so nobdy would get scammed, but ..you know the rest of this story I promise to not do that in the future, and too bad for the suckers who buy from him. please restore my posting privilages thanks red hornet12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhornet12 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what it is you are looking for. Are you requesting an unblock? Are you having problems with another editor, and need assistance? Please lay out your comments in a simple, clear manner. You should reply below this text. Anthøny 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see now - you are discussing my vandalism block on you, dated 18 November. That block has now expired - it lasted 10 hours, and automatically runs out after that length of time. You should now be able to edit again, but please bear in mind why you were blocked: vandalism and disruption is not tolerated. Anthøny 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence

Lets talk on IRC about this. -- Cat ^chi? 00:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll sign in soon. Anthøny 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR template - semi-protection

Hi there, I received your message about the template. I guess what happened was that I copied the template from the other established templates, and they had the semi-protection tag on. I didn't remove them, which was why they appeared as a bluff. I think I'll make a note on the user warnings page reminding people to remove the tag if they create any new templates. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see :) it's easily done, thanks for explaining! Anthøny 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage design?

Do you mind if I take certain areas of your userpage? I know you're very relaxed about this matter normally, but I would just to clarify this. Also, I'm on IRC if you want to chat. Regards, —Qst 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems at all ;) yep, I'll log in. Anthøny 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mopping up by a clerk

Hi, AGK. I am leaving this note after reviewing some simple Arbitration case cleanup you did recently here. It appears you corrected a spelling mistake in a quote attributed to user Rob. The word, "pseudonym". You know how to spell it, and I know how to spell it, but if another editor is quoted verbatim, I think his/her mistakes should be quoted verbatim also. Please let me know if I am mistaken, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct here: I corrected the spelling error rather mindlessly, which I shouldn't have done. I'll change it back (if you've not already done so), if you'd prefer? Anthøny 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you could, please. I am a party to that case, and as such, I am trying to avoid touching anyone else sections. I hope you'll understand. Thanks! Xenophrenic (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ([1]). Anthøny 23:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Comment

Sorry, I didn't see your comment... you sneakily hid it under the Signpost... ;)

I'm fine. Same old, same old, running for ArbCom, putting articles up for FAC... :) How have you been? David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so-so :) just keeping busy - like we all are! Anthøny 11:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Kirby

Anthony - thanks for acting in Greeb Kirby's best interest and giving him good advice. Those of us that believe in his potential are keeping our fingers crossed. Street Cred Fred (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't make any guarantees as to his being unblocked. I firmly and absolutely intend to take action that will favour Wikipedia; if that involves restoring Kirby's edit access, so be it. However, if I find that his being able to edit will be to the detriment of the encyclopedia, I will not unblock him. I hope you understand. Anthøny 16:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hallowicked

Can you please clarify why the article was deleted before I'd put any serious work into it, as there has been no logical reason given other than some guy tried posting one in January. In that time, Hallowicked has stepped up from an indy guy working around the circuit to make a name for himself to a member of the Ring of Honor roster, which makes him more worthy of inclusion to the database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D2Kvirus (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but, the article was deleted because consensus had already been made by the community to delete it at a previous time (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallowicked). If an article was deleted via consensus at articles for deletion, it should not be recreated. However, it is perfectly understandable that you did not understand this at the time, I hope this has cleared thins up for you. Again, sorry for intruding :) —Qst 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Qst pretty much covered it, there :) as it stands, consensus is against that article. If you'd prefer, you can re-create the article and I will take it to Articles for Deletion, in order to re-establish consensus. However, whilst community consensus stands against the article, it should not be overruled, but instead re-sought. Anthøny 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have the memory of an elephant.

Would this be it? :P Anyway, feel like an image? And sorry, heh. Regards, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness :) thanks for the (re-)offer, but I'll pass now - I wouldn't use it with my userpage style anyway! Anthøny 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Just wondering why the Stephen Alderson wikipedia page was deleted..?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steboyuk (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comment. Articles on Wikipedia have to demonstrate why their content is important and/or significant. Unfortunately, the article "Stephen Alderson" failed to show this importance, and so I deleted it, per Speedy Deletion criterion A7. I hope you understand, and please don't be discouraged: you simply need to select an article to write that shows its significance. Regards, Anthøny 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding CHU resignation

Thanks for replying to me. However, I am keeping by my decision. I'm hindering the efficiency there and it will almost certainly become more smoother without my input. And re-iterating my statement in my statement, this is not one of those acts trying to get attention. I just believe without my contributions, less confusion etc. will be created. I do thank, you, Deskana and Qst for your support in this matter. Best, Rudget _talk 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, it's your decision, and I support you fully, whatever you do. Anthøny 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rudget _talk 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Oh and by the way, thanks for letting me use your header to make this. (Even if I slightly changed it). Best, Rudget _talk 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem, I'm glad you liked it! Anthøny 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green Kirby

I'm not to sure I agree with the way you are handling the Green Kirby case. I was under the impression Wikipedia has Zero tolerance to sockpuppetry and personal attacks and disruption. Also if you werent aware, another (admin?) has done the exact same thing with Green Kirby when he was banned before, and gave him another chance. Allowing someone to edit Wikipedia that is banned for what he has done, even through someone else, doesnt seem right. Please take what I have said into consideration, and please leave the bann standing, and protect his talk page. Thank you. Atomic Religione (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I object to what you're saying. I have never stated my intention to unblock, and to be honest I see little possibility of that happening. I am also aware of his previous record, and believe me I will take that truly into consideration when considering the block. Anthøny 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I just want to thank you for the way you handled the Green Kirby unblocking case. It wasn't a simple matter at all and you put a lot of effort in to being as honest, AGFy and patient as could be. Many other admins would have slammed the door shut but you didn't, and I applaud you for that. While I won't comment on your decision either way, I think you did an excellent job and gave this editor every fair chance - Alison ^❤ 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Alison :) I appreciate you taking time out for me! Anthøny 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm Green Kirby. Do not block me, as I'm using a friend of mine's account. I am not here to ask for another chance. I'm just doing one last thing. Check my contributions. See all those edits, they were all made by me. All of them, in less than 10 minutes. If I was unblocked, I would be making more edits like these. Don't bother blocking me again. This is the last time I will be using this account. Just thought you should see what edits I would make if I was unblocked.Obi-wan lego (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a proven sock of Green Kirby - I see you got there first, Anthony. Also blocked the new account Luigi Wars (talk · contribs) as a sock of Green Kirby - Alison ^❤ 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that he wants to edit Wikipedia :) Anthøny 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can take him anymore...he just keeps coming back. And now he said 'I'm not crying, I'm not Sukecchi!' I wasn't sure if that would be considered a personal attack or not...but still...I'm getting tired of this. Something else needs done about this. Is there a way to prevent account creation? Maybe some kind of IP ban? -Sukecchi (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've run a checkuser[2] and have blocked all his accounts (there was another). I'm just about to protect the talk page on obi-wan. He's just getting abusive again - Alison ^❤ 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Alison - CheckUser is really the only tool we have when he chooses such elaborate usernames, so it's much appreciated. Sukecchi, if you experience any more trouble or notice any more hints of Green Kirby being around, don't hesitate to get in touch, either here or privately. Anthøny 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moldopodo (talk · contribs)

I've unblocked the above user, as I think that both sides in this debate are as bad as each other. I'll watch the article in question though, and the unblock I've given is on the proviso that he not edit war again. If he does, block him. Hard. :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't agree with Moldopodo being unblocked, although I do agree with your reasoning that one side being blocked whilst the other is not is not ideal. Nevertheless, I'm always open to third-party-Administrator review, and as I trust your judgement, I'm willing to follow it :) Anthøny 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AzLehrer and IP sockpuppets

Hi. Thanks for the rapid action. I do have a question, however; have all permutations of the IPs 82.166.xxx.xxx and 89.1.xxx.xxx been blocked, or just the ones I listed in the sockpuppet report? He logs on via a different IP number every day, so if the blocking is one IP# at a time, it will just turn into a game of "whack-a-mole", and accomplish nothing in terms of prevention. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It's clear he operates via a dynamic IP address, so I'll plant a few range blocks to prevent further disruption. Anthøny 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - [3]. Anthøny 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy birthday

Happy birthday! Hope all is well today. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Everything's great ;) Anthøny 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/300 (film)

As I haven't been involved in an RfM before, I asked Daniel what I should do. I am not one of the direct participants in the content dispute, but am fully aware of the background of the issue and have some secondary or tertiary involvement. Do I just sign in with the other participants? And as well, Happy Birthday. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I shall have to consult with the other Parties as to this matter, as in my experience all the key editors in a dispute will be listed, and anybody who asks to take part afterwards is often a "secondary" party, with regards to the level of involvement in the dispute and the issues at hand. However, if you believe that you have anything to contribute to the dispute, then I do not see why you cannot be involved: failure to allow you to participate would simply result in having to repeat the Mediation with you involved, unless you agree to the outcome of the first Mediation, of course. I'll get back to you on this one. And thanks for the Happy Birthday wishes ;) Anthøny 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I am one of the key players. Most of my input would be as to background and confirmation. I have no stake in the matter as per WP:FUCK. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have something to contribute, then I don't see why you shouldn't be added. However, I'll need to run it by the Parties, so I'll raise it during the Preliminary Discussion, so that you can be included in the actual Mediation itself. Anthøny 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I'l wait to hear back from you, then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor CTU agents in 24

Hi there. Just thought I'd let you know that unprotection has been requested over at WP:RFPP. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and happy birhtday! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the notification. Since the request was still answered, I took the liberty of handling it (it was a low-controversy request), and the article in now unprotected. Cheers for the birthday wishes, and best of luck in the remainder of your Dispute Resolution! Anthøny 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... am I involved in something I don't know about? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Anthøny 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck—I'm not involved in the matter :) I was just working on RFPP and came across this one; decided to let you (as the protecting admin) know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of admins

Hi AGK. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification :) Anthøny 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rgsao

Are you still working the SSP and unblock on this user? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not handling the SSP case, now. However, I am still processing the Unblock request - in fact, I'll complete it right now. Anthøny 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)