User talk:AGK/Archive/20

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] Question re: Scrabulous/IP

Hi! Just a quick question here since you marked the discussion as resolved, which I have no problem with. I'm not sure what the guidelines are, despite a search, as to reverting the IP's talk page to include the message I left. My reason for doing so is solely for the user to be aware of a discussion that I'd like his/her input on. I see no guidelines on undoing changes to another talk page done by a supposed uninterested third party. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I say this without (re-)looking into the background on the matter. If you are referring to a (hypothetical) situation where you warn an anonymous editor on their own talk page, as to inappropriate conduct on the project, and they themselves revert your edit, then as a rule of thumb, let it drop: it will be assumed they have read the message, so by reverting it they cannot claim ignorance if the matter arises at a later date.

Thus, if you posted a message to an editor's talk page, and they reverted, then the matter should, generally, be put to one side: that is to say, one should not re-revert in order to ensure the said message is kept on that editor's talk page. However, you can continue with proceedings to prevent further disruption (e.g., making a request that the account be blocked) if the editor continues the behaviour for which they were warned, in the same manner as if they had not removed the template. I hope this answers your query; if I've picked you up wrong, then please clarify what you actually did mean, and I'd be happy to re-answer. Cheers, Anthøny 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments on the waterboarding evidence page.

I had to deal with this box of socks a year ago, and it almost drove me away from Wikipedia. Thanks so much! --BenBurch (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my pleasure; the situation was badly in need of attention, anyway :) glad I could help! Anthøny 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Article

I would like the text and content of my made article back. I understand that what I put was stupid and obsurd. I just want it back to post it somewhere else besides wikipedia (myspace,etc.)

The article was called "Eastern Asian Alliance" made by nguyennathan (my wikipedia account)

I'd appreciate it if you could give me the text back to me.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyennathan (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, check your talk page for the content. Best regards, Anthøny 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding parties

This looks dodgy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll get some thoughts on the matter, bear with me. Anthøny 22:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, thanks for bringing it to my attention: I didn't notice the watchlist entry, for some reason :) Cheers, Anthøny 22:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popped your green box balloon

Please revert this if it's not OK--sorry, that tiny missing word drove me batty when I saw it. Lawrence § t/e 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sure we can let it slide :) it's not altering the meaning, but simply improving the readability of the page as a whole, so I for one welcome it. Well noticed! Anthøny 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your work on the ACD article, it's certainly come a long way, especially for a Scotsman! -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure! Anthøny 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

My pleasure, glad I could help. Anthøny 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Nintendo Data...

Dear AGK:

I've noticed a lot of the great Nintendo Information has been deleted off the Wikipedia website. The information I'm refering to includes data about characters and enemies in the Donkey Kong Country Series (such as the Kremling Krew), individual information and pictures of every Pokémon in the Series, and any other info about Nintendo games or characters that have or will be deleted, such as Mario Series and Zelda Series characters, enemies, and Areas. I would like to know why this data was deleted in the first place. I would also like to request for most--if not all--of this data to be added back on the Wikipedia website ASAP. I would truly appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.224.211 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good afternoon, and thanks for contacting me. Articles on Wikipedia may be deleted for a number of different reasons, all of which are listed on the deletion policy. In the case of the Kremlings article, that was in accordance with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kremlings, a forum where users put forward articles which may be unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and other editors discuss the proposal, with various outcomes, including deletion, available.

If you wish this article to be restored, you can make a proposal at deletion review. You should also read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?, an excellent page which should explain the deletion much easier than I could. Lastly, if you'd like a copy of the content of the article to read yourself, or post to another Wiki/alternative outlet, then you can email me requesting so, and I will provide you with the content. Otherwise, there isn't much I can do: I am an administrator, but that does not entitle me to overturn consensus. You really need to go through an official, consensus-seeking channel, or request a copy of the deleted content to use elsewhere. Cheers, Anthøny 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted your edit to Portal:Free software

Hi. Your recent edit to Portal:Free_software removed the tabs functionality from the portal. This is a big change and wasn't mentioned in your edit summary, so I guess it might have been an accident.[1]

Or, if you have a vision for a tabless, better future for Portal:Free_software, could you describe it on Portal_talk:Free_software? Adding tabs functionality was a lot of work, so it's not something that's easy to change direction on frequently. Thanks. --Gronky (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll pop by and start up a discussion. I didn't realise I implemented my tests (I was sandboxing on a subpage at first), so feel free to revert me, if you haven't already done so. Anthøny 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User page designs

I noticed that you had your user page deleted due to concerns posed at your RfA over its affect on your edit count.

Permanent links to some of your user page designs were posted as examples here. They were very good examples of what could be done with a user page. But they had to be removed because the page they led to was deleted.

Would you do me a favor?

Could you undelete your user page, and make copies of the various user page versions you created so that I could link to them? Then you could delete the user page again.

I'd appreciate it.

The graphic design artistry on your various userpage versions is amazing. It'd be a shame to lose them to the graveyard.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, TT; I'd be glad to ;) Anthøny 09:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D.M.N.

This guy is extremely ambitious, like you.

I was wondering if you could offer some guidance/advice on his coaching page.

The Transhumanist 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... I'll definitely pop by his coaching page within the next few days (I'm pretty busy, see :), and make sure he doesn't make the same mistakes I did ;) thanks for the note, that looks an intriguing one! Anthøny 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I want my account back

My account Www_archaeooptryx_org was blocked due to inappropriate username. Will you tell me how to change the user name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username, but to be honest, you are better simply creating a new account. No matter which option you choose - changing your user name, or registering a new account altogether - the name you select must not be a violation of the username policy. Cheers, Anthøny 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jollix

I notice you've closed the debate at WP:Articles for deletion/Jollix. The result was three-to-one for deletion, yet you've declared "no consensus". I thought the evidence I put forward was pretty conclusive. WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus says:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.

Since the sole argument for keeping it was based on arguments that contradict policy, shouldn't the result have been to delete? Technobadger (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my closing statement, this is a very hazy discussion. Your point above was one course of action I considered when handling the discussion's closure, but, as you can obviously see from my final decision, I ultimately concluded on the contrary.

Firstly, I never tally a vote count when closing: that provides too much of a temptation to count heads, which is contrary to WP:DGFA. Hence, I do not see the necessity of citing "..result was three-to-one for deletion, yet you've declared 'no consensus'...".

Secondly, there were no hugely persuasive arguments put forward for delete, despite its numerical majority: the first and second comments were based partly and primarily (resp.) on the fact that the project which was the subject of the article was dead, a point which was later found to be untrue.

Lastly, my closure was on the basis that there were no significant arguments put forward by each side. I simply did not, and do not, feel comfortable deleting an article without a clear consensus. I hope this clears matters up? Anthøny 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but the fact of the subject being dead was certainly not found to be untrue. I repeatedly asked for evidence that the project had been alive after 2004, and none has yet been cited, and I have certainly searched hard for it myself. The dissenting editor initially claimed that the Distrowatch reference proved it to be alive, but Distrowatch clearly states that the last version was in 2004. Which of the evidence cited do you believe proves otherwise? Technobadger (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that no release has been made since 2004. Having said that, would you support deleting an article, with the justification that it has been inactive for a period of time? I'd be interested in your opinion in that; for the record, that is an actual question, rather than a rhetorical one :) Anthøny 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the proviso that "activity" of a software project is not merely a matter of frequent releases (cough... Debian...cough...), but also behind-the-scenes development activity, normally made evident by activity on a version control system, mailing lists, etc. On a free software project like a Linux distro, you'd expect to see occasional announcements and messages on a list, as well as occasional support questions and feature requests. The lists, if any ever existed, are now gone, and there are no files available from the project site for download. In fact, we presently have only hearsay evidence that the project ever existed (though I would assume it has).

Also, the matter of notability was argued, and the evidence cited for notability is virtually nil. Technobadger (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The arguments for notability were lightly brushed against, rather than discussed in depth; no consensus about notability being present, not absent, was reached. Admittedly, it is generally procedure on-Wiki to assume the latter, which is unfortunate but necessary, but I would still prefer not to delete the article with such basic discussion as an incentive. Would you be opposed to opening another AfD, or my filing a DRV to further discuss the matter with others? Anthøny 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Another difficulty is that there are presently no notability guidelines for software. An attempt was made (WP:Notability (software)), but the wheels fell off that wagon, somewhere on its talk page. No, I wouldn't oppose either an AfD or DRV in this case, thanks for asking. Technobadger (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall file one within the next 24 hours, in that case :) I only suggested it, as we appear to be at a dead end, with neither of us really agreeing! Some third-party input would no doubt be useful. I'll drop you a talk page message when the discussion is started. Cheers, Anthøny 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

May I also add the following, to clarify the "Yes, with the proviso..." above? I would support deleting an article with the justification that it is non-notable and, having been inactive for a period of time, stands little chance of becoming notable. Inactivity alone, even for many years, would certainly be insufficient sole grounds for deletion, since notable software can go through long periods of inactivity or even cease development, e.g. Pine (e-mail client). Similarly, a software project can be highly active but the result presently non-notable, e.g. UbuntuLite. If it were proven that Jollix was still under active development, then I would support merging and redirecting to List of Linux distributions or similar. Technobadger (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I understand your stance on the matter. I myself take no opinion on the notability of the subject itself; rather, I simply oppose deletion, or any opinion that it should be deleted, on the basis of current discussion, in that the discussion to date has been insufficient with regards to demonstration of consensus of non-notability. Anthøny 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have listed the matter at Deletion Review for futher discussion; feel free to offer input there. Anthøny 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Vandalism

Hey Anthony/AGK. I have recently noticed that the article Hawaii has been getting a lot of Vandalism. Earlier today I put on a {pp-semi-vandalism|expiry=March 2, 2008}} (and it's still there) but IP's can still change things. Why is this and can you fix it? Thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to be an administrator in order to protect articles; this is done through a restricted function, and not simply by adding the tag. Administrators simply add the tag (e.g., {{pp-semi-vandalism}}) in order to notify editors that the page is protected from editing. The tag may only be added by administrators after they have made a protection on the page, and may not be added as a "bluff", or by non-administrators.

It is essential that the tag is not added, except by administrators and after a protection has actually been made. If you are a non-administrator and notice an article undergoing an edit war, request that the page is protected on this page. Cheers, Anthøny 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

After asking you that I found that page and got it locked. thanks for your help :) --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

Thank you for the delivery, Derek. Anthøny 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ioeth

{{talkback|Ioeth|Yoshi525 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)}}
Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I hadn't noticed! Anthøny 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one there for you! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, and I just watchlisted your page ;) Anthøny 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|Yoshi525|Sockpuppetry}}
Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate... Well, I suppose that resolves the matter :) Anthøny 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons

Why, what was wrong with the page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it—I was simply notifying you of the deletion. Is there anything in particular you think may have been wrong with it? Anthøny 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there might have been some history in the page, so could you merge the history from this page to this page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the page, to allow you to salvage the content. You will be able to do a better job than I, considering your experience and involvement in the project and topic area. Just drop me a note when you've finished with the page, and I shall re-delete. Anthøny 20:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Hi,
I don't know if this is used here on wp:en.
I am not happy to see "this page" referenced by google while this request had no justification.
Could it be cleaned up (On wp:fr, we say : blanchie), ie, its content deleted (but kept in the history) just not to be referenced by google any more.
Thank you, Ceedjee (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the page as a courtesy; that should stop the search engine indexing. Anthøny 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Ceedjee (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PajaBG (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

Hi I'm Bindicapriqi , I see that you are an administrator so you might want to take a look at User:PajaBG
this user has been reverting the albanian version of the etymology of the name of Istok several times and thus displaying only the serbian version.
Since there are two versions of the etymology of the name they should both appear.
I have alredy warned the user but he/she isn't stoping

Please take a look --B.C. 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left both you and PajaBG a comment on how to approach disputes over article content; please read that, and proceed accordingly. It is essential you do not revert war, but instead resolve your disputes. Anthøny 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem on the exactly same issue in this article, and it was resolved a year ago also by the outside (administrator's ?) intervention. Bindicapriqi is now disrupting the article adding the same stuff which was a problem before and was already resolved in January 2006. PajaBG (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That may indeed be true, but it is essential that the both of you move forward and attempt to find a common ground and a consensus on the dispute, through resolution and discussion. Ignore what happened previously; start a-fresh, be courteous and keep your cools. Anthøny 17:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted to keep the article from becoming a total mess

Note that the same user nominated this article for deletion. After that it is really hard to expect good faith additions only.
Even the discussion becomes difficult if statements, parts of the article and references disappear. See the edit summaries, I tried to keep his constructive edits and restore deleted text. The whole article lost its transparency and if nobody intervenes he makes even more changes. It's not that easy to differentiate between constructive and harmful edits if there are too many changes.
I should save an earlier version to be able to keep track? I will read your answer here. Squash Racket (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to start discussion on the user's changes, if you think they are in violation of WP:NPOV or other policies. Naturally, if the violation is obvious, and the user refuses to pay heed to any warnings, then you may revert them, but do not do so numerous times: rather, report them to an Administrator, who will take appropriate action to prevent them from disrupting the article further.

It is essential that you take disussion as your first course of action in all disagreements: it is only when that fails, dispute resolution is fruitless, or the user's attitude is repeatedly shown to be incompatible with consensus-building discussion, that you should consider taking steps to preventing them from editing disruptively. Anthøny 18:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)