User talk:AGK/Archive/19

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] Thankyou

Thankyou for the unblock. I look forward to constructively editing wikipedia in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 05kinjac (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Best wishes! Anthøny 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your flowery block template

I love it! Very funny. :D --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) Anthøny 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

May I borrow it? It's much nicer than the one I use. Keilana^talk_(recall) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, you're more than welcome! Anthøny 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching

I've replied to you on my coaching page. The Transhumanist 21:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that was a long time ago :) well, I've replied anyway! Anthøny 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment disorder

Many thanks. Fainites ^barley 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure :) Anthøny 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X

Not particularily interested in your idle threats of blocking me and dumb assertions that I'm doing "damage" by preventing sourced criticism from being deleted from the encyclopedia by single-purpose accounts[1], and people who don't "do" WP:BRD. Also, having been around Wikipedia for more than two years, I am also quite familiar with dispute resolution methods, and don't need a reminder as to what they are. Thanks for the thought, though. -/- Warren 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Any time :\ Anthøny 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

Happy new year! Sorry I have been generally incommunicado lately - First my computer took a crap and I decided that with the amount of time my family spends online, it might not be such a bad idea to completely eliminate it from our lives entirely for a while. Then just as I finally gave in to my daughter's pleading and bought a new computer, work picked up big time for me and I haven't had any freedom to come back to work on Wikipedia. But now that the new year is starting, things have slowed down and I'm back to business. Hope everything is going well with you! Trusilver (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trusilver, glad you're back! Things on my part are fine, two periods of low activity appear to be coming up but otherwise all's great :) It's no problem that you've been away: some of our finest contributors are a little bit freelance, coming and going as they please! Hope things are great with you and your family (and that your daughter enjoys the finally-purchased computer!), and be sure to pop by again ;) Best regards for the new year, Anthøny 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

Hey Anthony. I see your on a wikibreak. Anything to do with Helpwiki? :) Rudget. 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean it's a break because of Help wiki, not at all :) if you mean will it affect Help wiki, well, I've posted to my user page there! Cheers, Anthøny 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take a look now. Rudget. 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, good luck with the new tools! Anthøny 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How To Archive talk pages

Hello, I had at one point asked user:EEMIV about how to archive my talk page however I have noticed that a few other topic discussions could use it. and I was just wondering how to do it. (If you'd like feel free to respond on my page.) thanks in advance! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your enquiry. I'll happily show you how to archive a talk page (not now though, I've not got much time :-) if you'd like to do some reading before I get in touch with you, the relevant page is here. Cheers, Anthøny 13:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here, but there is a page designed for this, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. :) Qst 13:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, what he said ;) Stealth, I'd still be willing to show you how to do it, if you find that page confusing. Anthøny 13:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AGK, could you please go on IRC, there are a few problems with Help wiki. Qst 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AGK, I just read it and I kinda got lost, could you explain the steps so it is a little less difficult? Thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Qst, my internet connection isn't up to it right now :) I've seen the error message, however, and I'll do my best to sort it ASAP. Stealth500, as I said to Qst, I've not got much time just now, but I'll do my best to log on again later on in the day and explain it to you. Perhaps, in the meanwhile, Qst could show you how to do it? Anthøny 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, as long as I could know by monday/tuesday ill be fine :). When do you think you will be able to explain? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Stealth. You've mentioned you have spotted an article talk page that needs archiving. Pick one, and follow these steps:

1. Look for any existing archives linked on the main talk page; if there is any, open the most recent in a new tab (e.g., [[Talk:An article/Archive 3]]); replace the number with the next archive (in this case, four).
2. Open up the new archive, now number four. In your other tab, where the main article talk page, decide how much discussion you're going to archive. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't take any currently active discussion into the archive; but, don't worry too much if you do: somebody will just take it back out again :)
3. To make the cutting-out-old-discussion process easier, when you've picked the last discussion you're going to archive (that is, anything under that discussion, you aren't going to archive), and look at the name of that discussion (the bit inside the == Header coding ==).
4. Edit the main talk page, and look for that discussion you selected in the previous step. Starting from the bottom of that discussion, use your mouse and highlight that entire discussion from the bottom upwards. When you reach the header of the discussion, just keep highlighting upwards until you reach the top discussion (make sure you don't take away any WikiProject boxes, the archive list, etc... - we only archive the actual discussions).
5. Cut (Ctrl/⌘ + C) this highlighted text.
6. Go to the archive you created in step 2. Paste the text.
7. Back in the main discussion page, look for the archive list. If there's not one, just add "*[[/Archive 4|Archive 4]]" to the top of the page (remember to replace 4 with whatever archive number you've actually created when doing the archiving for yourself)!)
8. Save the main discussion page, with an edit summary of "Archived stale discussions to [[Talk:An article/Archive 4]]".
9. Make sure you've not messed up the page; if you have, go into the history and revert yourself, and ask myself or another user for more help. Otherwise, you're almost done.
10. The final step is to tag your new archive page as an archive, and then finish creating it. Firstly, put {{talkarchive}} at the very top and the very bottom of the archive. Then, save the page, with an edit summary of "creating archive with old discussion from [[Talk:An article]]".

And you're done ;) Archiving is a very complicated process to get a grasp of, although it's easy as cake when you've done it a few times. Don't be afraid to try it out, but be sure not to keep doing it if you just can't get the hang of it: you'll just disrupt the article's talk pages.

There are a number of bots that archive talk pages, such as ClueBot III. The guide to archiving a talk page is located here. I hope this helps!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help, I tried it on the talk page for Hawaii Located Here. Tell me if I did anything wrong....

Again thanks!--Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks fabulous, well done! Anthøny 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection of Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line

According to protection policy, semi-protection is for use for clear vandalism. It is explicitly not for use in cases where there is a dispute between registered users and anons. User:Tivedshambo specifically lied about the nature of the debate in the request (claiming it was "between anons", when he knew full well that he was involved), having previously made false statements about consensus (what little agreement he did have to support him was gained on the basis of misleading statements). I therefore ask that you either unprotect the page or elevate to full protection. Thanks. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall review the situation, and get back to you presently. Anthøny 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Note and a prod: WP:RFPP#Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line needs looking at. Woody (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers much, Woody, for the notification ;) to the originally-enquiring anonymous editor, thanks for your patience. Having reviewed the situation, it's pretty clear that the party who requested the protection (Tivedshambo, a registered account) is a party to the dispute in question, and thus I have updated the protection to "full", with a reference to this discussion in my summary. I urge the parties involves, both Tivedshambo and the anonymous editor, to immediately seek dispute resolution (either request a third opinion at your Template-talk page discussion, or request informal mediation).

It is essential that you find a compromise or reach an agreement in this matter; revert warring because of a dispute really helps nobody, and a word of warning: it can get you blocked. Whilst dispute resolution gets underway, the two of you could, perhaps, reach a truce? It's actually an official part of the Dispute Res. process (see my link), and can be very helpful. Otherwise, good luck with your attempts at finding a common ground. Before you all go, a final word of apology in this matter towards the anonymous editor: I should have taken a closer look at the particulars of the protection request, but in not doing so I actually shut you out of a page, which must have been quite frustrating. My apologies, and again, good luck with your discussions! Anthøny 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locking Internet slang

Ok, so I am not sure who to ask however I had suggested earlier that the thread Internet slang be locked to outsiders and to new users of Wikipedia since it keeps getting Vandalised and the list of examples gets changed. I suggested this on the talk page and a couple people agreed however I don't believe anyone objected, SO..... I was wondering if yuo would be willing to lock it to certain groups (mainly unregistered members and new Wikipedia members). Thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Stealth ;) that article has already been protected by Hmwith (talk · contribs). However, in future, if you notice an article that is experiencing particularly high levels of vandalism, you can make a request at the protection requests board (which can be reached through the shortcut WP:RFPP). That page generally receives high attention at most times of the day, and any articles being vandalised will usually be given prompt attention. Of course, you can still contact an individual administrator (like you did here), but obviously they mightn't be online (like I wasn't, in this instance), so RFPP is probably your best bet ;) Hope this helps! Anthøny 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I ran into your page and saw that your an administrator so I thought I'd direct you to Special:Contributions/87.33.41.2. He seems to make real contributions in some articles and vandalize others. If you can't help perhaps you can direct me to someone who can? Thanks, ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (^verbalize_generosity) 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. That definitely looks like vandalism, but the account has been blocked by Chris G (talk · contribs). Regarding situations where helpful contributions are being in conjunction with vandalism, damage limitation should come first: that is, err on the side of protecting the encyclopedia from harm. After that, attempt re-education: have a word on the account's talk page post-the block being made, and try and get them to cut out the vandalism, and only make helpful edits ;) Hope this helps! Anthøny 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, Qst, thanks for the correction :) Anthøny 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for nominating me and thanks for the advice. I did a few attack page speedy deletions yesterday just to get a feel for it, but don't worry, I'm not going to go on a rampage! I'll certainly be carefully observing for a few weeks, and hanging out on the Admin Noticeboard and IRC channel. Thanks again and all the best, -Canley (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, I'm glad it's passed, and you're following my advice :) of course, don't be afraid to wet your feet: it needn't be all observation at the start! My advice is just saying, start out slowly ;) Best wishes, Anthøny 22:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection of Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line

According to protection policy, semi-protection is for use for clear vandalism. It is explicitly not for use in cases where there is a dispute between registered users and anons. User:Tivedshambo specifically lied about the nature of the debate in the request (claiming it was "between anons", when he knew full well that he was involved), having previously made false statements about consensus (what little agreement he did have to support him was gained on the basis of misleading statements). I therefore ask that you either unprotect the page or elevate to full protection. Thanks. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall review the situation, and get back to you presently. Anthøny 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Note and a prod: WP:RFPP#Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line needs looking at. Woody (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers much, Woody, for the notification ;) to the originally-enquiring anonymous editor, thanks for your patience. Having reviewed the situation, it's pretty clear that the party who requested the protection (Tivedshambo, a registered account) is a party to the dispute in question, and thus I have updated the protection to "full", with a reference to this discussion in my summary. I urge the parties involves, both Tivedshambo and the anonymous editor, to immediately seek dispute resolution (either request a third opinion at your Template-talk page discussion, or request informal mediation).

It is essential that you find a compromise or reach an agreement in this matter; revert warring because of a dispute really helps nobody, and a word of warning: it can get you blocked. Whilst dispute resolution gets underway, the two of you could, perhaps, reach a truce? It's actually an official part of the Dispute Res. process (see my link), and can be very helpful. Otherwise, good luck with your attempts at finding a common ground. Before you all go, a final word of apology in this matter towards the anonymous editor: I should have taken a closer look at the particulars of the protection request, but in not doing so I actually shut you out of a page, which must have been quite frustrating. My apologies, and again, good luck with your discussions! Anthøny 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I've copied this debate back from history, as I've only just become aware of it, and would like a chance to counter the accusation 90.203.45.168 has made against me. I did not lie when I requested semi protection. I won't go into the details of the dispute here, suffice it to say that it has been debated in several places, and I had established consensus. 90.203.45.168 (and previous IP addresses of the same user) was the only person to dispute that consensus, so I reverted his edits accordingly. I eventually took the problem to WP:ANB, and the template was protected on 27 December. When this was lifted, revert warring immediately started up between 62.121.31.177 and 86.132.234.137. I therefore requested semi-protection at this stage [2]. In particular, I clearly stated "...I've decided to keep directly out of it now". This was perfectly true, and remains true today. Therefore I was correct in stating that the the dispute was (at the time of posting) between anonymous users. (In case there is any doubt, I am none of the IP addresses listed in the dispute, and will happily email you my IP address with proof if you so require it). I admit I was mistaken in requesting semi-protection, as I was not aware of the section of WP:PROT that states that semi-protection "should not be used to settle content disputes". This was lack of knowledge on my part, and does not make me a liar.

Finally, if you don't mind me saying so, I feel rather aggrieved that this serious accusation has been made against me, and that I have not been given a chance to defend myself. It only came to light when the the bot removed the protection tag on the template, as your protection change of 8 January did not show up in my watchlist changes. Hopefully this clears my name and puts the matter to rest. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. It is unfortunate that you feel upset about this matter; I assure you, that was not my intention. My stated opinion above is that you are a party to this dispute; you have just agreed to that, and rightly so. What I did not say, and it seems as though you are taking that from my comments, is that you attempted to mislead uninvolved editors (or, in this case, administrators) that you were not a party; I do not hold that opinion, and still do not. You are, as far as I can reasonably tell, an honest Wikipedian, and an upstanding editor, and I do not wish to even go so far as to question that, never mind directly attack or question it. Please do not feel as though you have been wronged, or that any miscarriage of justice has taken place here; I simply upgraded the protection, after it came to my attention that a registered account was relatively-recently involved in the dispute, and therefore that it would be possible that a protection that only extended to unregistered users could, theoretically, "cut out" certain parties, but not others. Anthøny 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to bring the level down, User:Tivedshambo has misled users by incorrectly stating that he has consensus support, when this is clearly not the case. Having been informed of that fact, he has continued to misinform other users and administrators. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD NPV/editing resolution

Hello, I have edited the ADHD entry due to a point raised about weasel wording. Please see my comments on the talk page. I believe the weasel wording would be solved by the article being re-written with a better balance and NPOV; the existence of another entry, Controversy_about_ADHD, is not prominent enough to make clear it's existence - IMHO it should be stated there IS a controversy and provide a link to it at the top of the ADHD article or the two articles should be combined - the two sides of an issue presented together to allow comparison. At present the 'controversy' is so tucked away as to be entirely missed by a reader, I know I didn't notice it. It seems an edit war is raging there and such things are beyond me; I have no agenda. I believe the article would benefit by the attention and expertise of a disinterested party with editing skill and hope you will consider my request to pop by. Thanks Miamomimi (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not got much time at the present moment, but I'll set a while aside tomorrow to have a look and do my best to improve the situation. Thanks for bring it to my attention. Anthøny 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't deal with this today, will deal with is as soon as possible. I've tagged my page as backlogged, so I don't forget :) Anthøny 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks AGK, with a bit of encouragement a draft re-write of the article has been presented and discussion seems ongoing on the talk page. I am sure your keeping an occasional eye on proceedings will help to prevent a slip back into an edit war. Unfortunately I have personal commitments just now which prevents me from helping further at this time. Regards Miamomimi (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AGK - I'm sorry to trouble you but I think I was premature in thinking progress was being made on the ADHD article, could you please pop by and see what you can do?? Many thanks, Miamomimi (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's unfortunate. There's a lot of reading for that dispute, so I may not be able to comment until either (a) later tonight, or (b) tomorrow afternoon. That may not be idea, but I'd rather do the dispute justice and make a serious attempt to solve it, rather than just showing my face there to satisfy your request: I'm a strong believer in doing things right first time, rather than once shoddy and again better :) I hope you understand, and thanks in advance for your patience. Anthøny 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely and thanks for your attention. I think it worth mentioning that Clockback has worked hard on a re-write of the article, as invited to do so, but lacks the necessary wiki programming skills (as do I) to properly show the content and it can only be seen in edit mode. This makes it difficult to approve or suggest changes and it seems there are those with personal reasons who resist the entire concept even though Clockback has support, support from editors who perhaps don't want to step in the middle of an edit war. This is an important topic which I'm sure will benefit by your mediation and technical know-how. Many thanks, Miamomimi (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: to demonstrate the problem NuclearWinner has edited the main article to provide a link to the controversy article and it has been reversed even though the controversy article clearly exists! I don't know why my user didn't show when I reversed back and don't know how to change that but tried, anyway I'm up to 3 reversals so up to my limit and cannot do any more - over to you to sort this one I hope, good luck! Miamomimi (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've not forgotten about you. I'll fly by as soon as I can. Anthøny 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually read the article the dispute was taking place on, and having had a glimpse over it, and realising what it was, I'm going to refrain from commenting on it, if you don't mind. I'm sorry I can't help: I simply do not wish to get involved in that particular subject. Perhaps you might seek mediation or a RfC instead? Anthøny 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP Sockpuppet is back

Sorry to say, but if you have a block on the 89.1.xxx.xxx domain, it is not entirely working; AzLehrer has posted again using yet ANOTHER alias, this time from 89.1.4.172 (see [3]). Pretty persistent cuss, really, and quite frustrating. Any ideas how he's getting past the block? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, that block was a fair while ago, so it has probably expired. Can you give examples of the disruption from that range? Anthøny 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The most egregious edits have been on Talk:Bengalia. Consider the state of that page last November 5th, before the block: [4], or any of the numerous anon IP edits from 89.1.xx.xxx or 82.166.xx.xxx in the page history, including violations of WP:CIVIL that continued even after your initial block was in place (e.g., [5]) - using yet another new pseudonym almost every single time. To review the case, it's archived at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AzLehrer. This is someone who will never stop attempting to edit Wikipedia, because he believes he WP:OWNs the three articles he edits, so the longer a block can be set in place, the better. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He just added a pile more edits to Talk:Bengalia today. He seems unable to grasp that his comments are being removed because he has been banned for abuse, not because anyone is disagreeing with his scientific claims. Since he has no stable account, it is impossible to deliver this message to him more directly. Dyanega (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now he's attacking me personally, for enforcing the ban. Can someone PLEASE block this domain? Dyanega (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget!

My pleasure, I'm glad I could offer my support. Anthøny 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Seems a lot has been happening over at the Help Wiki! Where've you been advertising? Rudget. 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as AGK is busy, I thought I'd tell you its been on the Wikipedia-en mailing list, I do believe. Qst 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying in lieu of me, Qst: much appreciated. To reply to your query, Rudget, it was over the WikiEN-l mailing list, I put in a note that we have a little project set up, and it went from there ;) Anthøny 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Film

I would like to inform you about the renomination of Golden Film on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. I had difficulty receiving support/oppose comments in the past, maybe you can help me. – Ilse@ 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, I've gave my opinion in the discussion. Hope this helps ;) Anthøny 22:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I hope too it does. – Ilse@ 09:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message box on template

I'm not sure that's a very good message box (people do occasionally add themselves to parties); besides, we would need to remember to remove the box on case closure. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that, and was going to add something in the instructions: it would literally just be a quick click of the delete button, but serves its purpose much more efficiently (as it's more eye-catching ;) than a text-based instruction, if you see my point. Where do you want to go from here? Text-based, box-based, both? Anthøny 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's centralize discussion on AC/CN. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed; a huge welcome back, and try not to wear yourself out next time, eh? Hope you enjoy your fresh round of editing ;-) Anthøny 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)