User talk:AGK/Archive/21

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] Tsk tsk...

Liked this edit. :) Rudget. 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

*evil giggles* :) Anthøny 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NoHenry block

I normally don't get involved with these discussions, but I wanted to point out something here. When I view [IMDB entry on Rosa Blasi], it's clear that NoHenry was in fact reverting vandalism - not inserting "deliberately incorrect information" as you suggested at User_talk:NoHenry. I urge you to take another look at the material being changed. From what I can see, the only thing being erroneously removed by NoHenry is the "Unreferenced" tag, which appears that it should have remained. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. I've taken another look (past tense, btw) and realised I made an error of judgement. I have lifted the block, and since issued NoHenry an apology, both via his talk page and via email. Hopefully that resolves the situation; I have also removed the incorrect sock puppet tags. Anthøny 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like I took too long to type my note. I'm glad you caught that and resolved it already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for showing an interest :) It's always good to know that I can't get away with being silly! Anthøny 22:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Just a misunderstanding with no hard feelings. Cheers. NoHenry (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prester John repeatedly misrepresents source - where to from here?

Hi AGK, I put the following on ANI but got no admin response. User:Coppertwig seems to think I should just let it go by. I think it important that boundaries on editor behavior be maintained.

This is not a content dispute. I suggested in discusions weeks before the ANI report that finding a source for the material would be possible. And since the ANI a source has been found. My concern instead is that the behavior that Prester John and Skyring/Pete promoted durring this dispute make working collaboratively a futile exercise.

---

(re-edited from ANI version)

In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)

Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.

Misrepresenting edits

Revision as of 00:43, 3 February 2008

Revision as of 01:59, 13 January 2008

Revision as of 00:10, 12 January 2008

The same edits have also been performed by IP

Revision as of 03:10, 1 February 2008 by 124.180.162.217

PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)

I can see from your user page that you are quite busy, if you dont have time yourself to have a look at this I would appreciate suggestions on what avenue to explore next. I am also open to feedback over what I could have done better/differently. Thanks for your time. SmithBlue (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look at the material now; bear with me for a short while. Anthøny 21:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The underlying problem here (I take this from User talk:Prester John/Archive 2#David Hicks allegations) appears to be the status of this website as a reliable source, per relevant policy on sources. Unfortunately, I am not involved in the dispute, and cannot issue a sweeping statement that it is a reliable source for the statements in the article you are challenging, or that it is not a reliable source.

I suggest following the dispute resolution process in an attempt to find a compromise to the status of the site as a reliable source. You may wish to open further discussion on the article talk page, invite a third opinion, or file a RfC. Either way, you have to settle this content issue calmly and civilly. To answer your fundamental query—dispute resolution and community input is where to go from this point. Anthøny 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time AGK - will take issue elsewhere. "Editors claim that repeatedly misrepresenting a source is OK" seems to be so unthinkable that admins to date misunderstand the simplicity of this case. SmithBlue (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is simply, but I still can't intervene: I really don't have any authority to do so. If all the parties agree to Mediation, for example, then the Mediator would have authority to get involved, but otherwise, I'm a bit powerless :) Good luck in the conflict resolution—I hope your discussions are fruitful. Regards, Anthøny (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OP

Can you possibly help out with the backlog at WP:OP? You're on the list of verified admins, but you don't seem to have been to WP:OP recently. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I went over to pitch in, and have done a bit of blocking. Cheers, Anthøny 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Group login

Hi AGK, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I hereby confirm that I now have sole access to my account on the Working Group Wiki (<wg-en.wikipedia.../User:AGK>). Thanks for your help. Anthøny 09:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OP verified users

Hey, the talk page of WP:OPtalk page of the verified users list is overflowing with requests to be added to the verified users list. (There's also a bunch on the talk page of the verified users list at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users). Can you help out with that? Thanks! Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would hold that as a slight exaggeration :) But yes, I'll (again) pop by and have a look. Anthøny (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility issues

The editor who made this comment [1] with the edit summary "rehab" to descibe Neutral Good's wikibreak has exceeded the limits of decorum. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm not so sure—are you sure there was malicious intent? Can you give a little background information as to why that phrase ("rehab"), which is not always derogatory, was used in a policy-violating and/or disruptive manner? AGK (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think it was meant derogatorily. Neutral Good just announced a wikibreak. Saying that somebody is going into rehab isn't very nice. These two have been at each other in the nastiest ways. Jehochman ^Talk 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point—I can imagine rather vividly a most nasty grin on the user's face has he typed that comment, and if that's the imagery that springs to mind when reading the comment, it is clear something is wrong :) I will take appropriate action—thank you for bring the matter to my attention. AGK (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

After discussion with a Clerk, I believe the correct course of action is to extend the assumption of good faith one last time. However, if there any further occurrences of disruptive editing and lack of civility, be sure to drop me a note. Regards, AGK (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like some help please

Hello, I'd like some help here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/2008_February_10 I'm the address that keeps being listed. I'm slightly upset about being called a nazi, also. Thank you 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good day. I'm not sure I understand what address you are referring to - can you point out exactly where your address has been listed? Additionally, can you provide a link to where you are being called a nazi? Obviously, I am treating this as very serious, but I cannot do much about it without a link to where this is all happening. AGK (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help Wiki

I see you seem to have closed the website down. If possible can I have the latest Database and Web sever dump. It would be a shame for all that hard work to goto waste. --Chris 12:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It was closed as a decision of Qst—you're going to have to ask his permission for the content, I'm afraid; if you is willing to provide it, then yes, I'll give you a DB dump. AGK (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is completely okay with me, as long as no private information (i.e. user passwords) is given out. I assume you only would like the sources to the help guides. Qst (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I have placed Help Wiki in a temporary URL (it won't be the same as the previous address, that was used whilst the project was active), which I will email to you shortly. Furthermore, I have created an export group, which has access to the Wiki and the "export" function; you can then export any Help Guides you believe have editorial value.

The temporary site will be around for approximately 1 week; if you need an extension on that time, then you'll need to drop me an email, but otherwise you've got a good while to export any pages you think should be kept. Don't hesitate to get second opinions from other Help Wiki contributors (I think here of Qst, Maxim, Rudget and Tomas), but for the large part, it would be prudent not to disclose the URL to anybody. You should get an email shortly. Regards, AGK (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read this now, has Help wiki gone to temporary updates for just a week and then be returned to the same URL? Rudget. 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's gone—catch Qst on IRC, he's the guy to ask about it. AGK (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Rudget. 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've logged in but I still can't view any pages --Chris 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, you should be able to do the required functions now. AGK (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Chris 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Wow, somehow I managed to avoid thanking you out of 148 people. Sorry! Also, thanks for the tips! I'm just running through the new admin school, testing out blocks and restores and the like. Cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's no worries, and I'm glad you liked them ;) Good luck with the tools, and the N.A. School! AGK (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info added per request

Per your note, added info specifying the 3RR violation to this case.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks—I have Relisted the request. AGK (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (signing this time Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing those instructions at the top :) Most people don't! AGK (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

After this mediation THUGCHILDz‎ and Guy0307‎ edit in disruptive manner like as a vandal!!!! Their edit warring in national sport is absurd. They insert Australia in list of nations where cricket is the most popular sport but in mediation's discussions Australian experienced editors assert Australian rules football and rugby league are most popular sports!!!! May you block them or advice them? Regards,--PIO (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, I have protected the article, and issued a warning to both of the users, cautioning against future edit warring. From this point onwards, they are going to have to follow the dispute resolution process to find a consensus. Regards, AGK (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your actions.--PIO (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't. I didn't in anyway deserve an warning. Edit warring on my part may be, but really I would like you as an administrator read this this mediation and know what the consensus was yourself. And PIO wasn't even really involved in that even though it was brought up to communicate with him. I would also like for you to go to the National sport edit history and tell me if I had done anything wrong. I had just made an edit according to the ref and then PIO comes and calls me a vandal and reverts my edits without any valid reason. Basically the issue was resolved in the mediation and we almost came to the solution and then PIO came back and started reverting. All I want you to do is please look it into that and explain to me what did I do so wrong to receive a warning?--05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THUGCHILDz (talk • contribs)

[edit] Dear AGK

You have warned me in my talk page. I just want you to know something. In the dispute, I wasn't taking any side. I was undo-ing PIO's edit concluding that Australia has a national sport. I'm not sure what Thugchildz' position is. After I undo-ed his edit PIO undo-ed mine while calling me a vandal. Me? A vandal? trying to solve the dispute? Then I noticed something VERY weird. Israel was under Basketball. BASKETBALL??? I don't think there is one person in Israel who thinks that Basketball is Israel's national sport. And I noticed another thing. Only 70 countries were under Soccer. It looked like someone edited the article and removed many countries from Football. Anyway, the current version is the one that should be used. Australia doesn't have a offical national sport, and it is impossible to say what is the most popular sport . Guy0307 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position here, but my warning still stands: regardless of whether your intent was positive or not, you still engaged in edit warring, and that is the wrong way to address a situtaion, no matter what it is. I ask you one final time - please stop edit warring. AGK (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advise

I advise you regarding this action which shows what's a kind of guy is this editor. In edit summary Guy0307 claims you and me -vandals- then removed our messages. Regards.--PIO (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry PIO, I meant to write Vandal. (You of course). I deleted the other masseage accidentaly. You are trying to turn an admin your way so you can control national sport. You called me a Vandal remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy0307 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the warning is removed or not, it still stands. I advise the both of you, Guy and PIO, to take a break from the National sport article. It's clear that the contributions of you two there at the present time, whilst you are both so heated up, are not helping in the last. Why not find another article to work on for a little while? AGK (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching

I've resigned as coach.

I thought you might want to help coach the VC students.

The Transhumanist 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed unfortunate—I hope everything is okay, Transhumanist. I have still to pop by and have a look at that situation you raised a week or two ago—again, I haven't forgotten! So I will definitely be by, one way or another. Regards, AGK (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack London

Hello. I see that on the 7th of this month, you protected the Jack London article because of the heavy amount of IP vandalism it was enduring. However, on the 11th, DUMbot removed the protection template. Unfortunately, the vandalism is as bad as it was before, and perhaps worse. Can we have the article protected again, please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not AGK (obviously), but the place to take these requests is WP:RFP, chances are it will be handled quicker their, as AGK seems to be editing at a reduced level as of late. :) Qst (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected, for 3 days. In future, you may wish to visit WP:RFPP to request protection, as Qst states—I'm not available 100% of the time :) Hopefully my action should dilute the influx of vandalism, at least for a short while, and help prevent further disruption. AGK (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP

Hi, this is a message by an IP. I want to create an account and make contributions. Can you explain me the process? You are an "administrator". That's why, I asked you. 202.52.243.122 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good day! That's excellent news—new contributors are always welcome :) Creating an account is a simple process—simply visit this page, enter a username and password (an email address is always helpful, too) and then get cracking!

Editing is very easy—to change the text of a page (e.g., Hello), simply click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, change what you think needs improved, and save the page. Check out Help:Contents/Getting started if you are stuck. Hope this helps, and good luck! Regards, AGK (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wo! Cool reply. Please copy and paste your reply on my IP address. It may also benefit other users. My IP address is a sharded IP and it is used by many users. I was told about Wikipedia by a friend. Your reply was cool. Thank you. 202.52.243.122 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure—happy editing ;) AGK (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gwernol

Dear AGK, a week or 2 ago I was warned by User:Gwernol. He accused me of vandalism on the Superbowl page. All I did was at the end of it I put the giants won (under what happened during the game). I now understand that it was vandalism, but at the point I really didn't. I then asked for more information but he has been gone for about 2 weeks it seems. So what I was wondering is if you could tell me if I am in trouble or anything because the last thing I want is to be banned..... Thanks. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can say if you are in any "trouble" for certain, as I do not know what edit for which it was you were warned. Can you provide me with a link, which documents the edit in which you inserted that information?

In the meanwhile, I will issue some general advice—if you don't disrupt the encyclopedia, and ensure all of your edits will help, rather than hinder, the project, then you will never get into trouble, let alone be banned. Regards, AGK (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This - is the edit Gwernol said I did and was vandalism and I got warned for it..... --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see why it was interpreted as vandalism—on the face of it, your edit does appear to simply be the insertion of what is broadly defined as "nonsense edits": non-constructive insertions of text that bear no encyclopedic value.

However, I would encourage you not to take this too seriously. In future, you should phrase your additions in a more encyclopedic way, to make it more readable, and, indeed, more professional looking. Whilst I would argue against it being malicious vandalism, it was indeed unconstructive—I am sure you understand that. Perhaps, in future, you may simply wish to be a little less energetic in your wording? Regards, AGK (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think thats fair, Like I said I defenetly won't do it again since the last thing I want is a ban..... Thanks for answering this. Cheers! 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Image:AGK_2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AGK_2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted, with thanks. AGK (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notice

The Arbitration notice you've crossposted across various places has a mistake in it: The last link (full enforcement) links to the wrong page - it links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Enforcement by block when it should link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Enforcement by block. As a clerk, I think you should be the one to tinker with it. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, that wasn't very smart of me. I'll fix as many instances of it as I can, although it's not a huge disaster—it is usually only the remedies that are included in the case summary, rather than both remedies and enforcements. Thank you for the notification—I would not have noticed :) AGK (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)