User talk:AGK/Archive/23

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] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 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 Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. 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) Geometry guy (News 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: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • No Such Thing as Vampires Reassessment: 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: 218 articles (46 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 14 June 2008 | edit

Thank you for the delivery ;) Kind regards, AGK (contact) 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RollBack

hello AGK,
you've declined my rollback request as you given here [1] but the reason given by you is so silly

you know one thing,

i have removed lots of spam links from wikipedia articles.

now check this you will understand

see this edit [2] i forgotten to write an edit summary as "removed spam link",so i used in next edit while removing unwanted reference section in here [3].

it doesnt means that i've facing lack of basic understanding the concepts.

you maybe the admininstrator,but doing like this create a bad expreesion on you,
mind it

goodbye - Bindaas19 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; nevertheless, I disagree. In (attempting) to revert the edit, unfortunately, you managed to remove the entire references list for the article... An editor of higher competence (and, indeed, of competence that meets the minimal requirements for access to rollback) would realise that the "vandalism" is actually in the form of an altered reference, which is essentially "transcluded" onto the references list by the MediaWiki software, and thus that simply rolling back the edit, would suffice.

Thank you for getting in touch; however, after re-reviewing your application, I am still inclined to decline.
Regards, AGK (contact) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

one day i will get rollback feature for my account,it is sure - Bindaas19 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like something of a threat... I hope you don't bear ill-feelings after my declining the application? I assure you, I meant nothing personally towards you by it: I'm sure you're a great guy, but just not quite ready for rollback. Don't be mad—I don't like it when people are upset :) AGK (contact) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ok - Bindaas19 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. If you ever need any help, I'll always be willing to offer you a hand ;) Best wishes, AGK (contact) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Bindaas19 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfB quiz

Hey AGK, just wanted to quickly say thanks for your on-going interest in my RfB! I'll do my best to answer your questions fully in due course, right now it's a little late for me to make dramatic statements and fall foul of my wiki-fatigue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I put you under pressure, and I completely understand: at this late stage, I'll understand if you "conveniently" put off answering until the 'crat flag is safely set :) Thanks for getting in touch, anyway! Cheers, AGK (contact) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand, the pressure is pretty intense at this RfB, didn't really expect it, but I understand, given the very nature of the questions, they're really important to the community. I've tried to answer two of your recent questions, the username usurpation area is one I'm not overly familiar with so I'll need to do my homework before exposing my ignorance! I'm certainly not in the business of avoiding scrutiny... I'll do more soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I understand. Best, AGK (contact) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Trickster. I'll get you... one of these days... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

*evil giggles* :) I'm glad you didn't fall into it! AGK (contact) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching you... (as is ceiling cat...) ... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No more tricks, I promise. You can trust me, honest! :) AGK (contact) 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine print: You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

Thank you for the notification :) AGK (contact) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. WODUP (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You posted this on my talk page

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you!

Best regards, AGK (contact) 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, this is nonsensical. The anon was given its last warning on March 1 and vandalized today while making what appears to be useful edits. You say no obvious violations but I see a final warning here. Care to explain? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, AGK appears to be right. None of the edits made by that IP address appear to be plain, simple vandalism (which AIV is intended for reporting of), so AGK's actions seem to have been correct here. Qst (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This, I took, as vandalism. What to do if a user contributes in good faith, but vandalizes in between? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good evening, Sesshomaru, and thanks for getting in touch—I'd be glad to explain my comment:

• The IP was warned 5 days ago–a final warning from as long ago is something that I'm unwilling to block on the basis of, primarily because of the dynamic nature of many IPs, and the quick turn-around many addresses have, in terms of reassignment: that is, there's no guarantee it's the same person using the IP.
• The editor made, for the most part, useful additions to the project (viz., [4])
• Vandalism edits made by the account (e.g., [5])are best treated with a warning: it's been, in terms of recent edits, a one-off, and slapping a block on the account for that would be, in my opinion, somewhat penal.

I hope this clears things up: we don't slap blocks on accounts for a single vandalism edit, under normal circumstances. Admittedly, it's likely that the editor behind the IP is going to vandalise. But, re-education is the first course of action, rather than the last: it precedes, rather than follows, a block. Best regards, AGK (contact) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't fully answer my question. What to do if a user contributes in good faith, but vandalizes in between? Give {{uw-vandalism2}} or {{uw-vandalism3}} warnings without ever reporting him/her? This would be very nice to know. And please keep the comments on your talk, as I have watchlisted this page. You need not alert me a second or third time if I ask you to reply here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a cursory notice, nothing more. To (re-)respond to your query, only report a user if they have demonstrated that they are completely unable to work constructively—as I said, that means being warned on 5 March 2008, not before (for IP addresses, at least). Yes, we do use {{uw-vand2}} on them, and no, we do not "[n]ever report.. him/her"—that would be absurd; simply, we do not file a report on AIV as soon as an account edits Wikipedia disruptively: if we did that, not only would be be backlogged, but a number of our contributors today would never have gotten a second chance. AGK (contact) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of user warnings, is there any particular reason that you removed my notice on your talk page? To me, that seems simply like you are attempting to hide the notice from future scrutiny. But, I digress. AGK (contact) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So pretty much give them another final warning after they already have one? Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages, JSYK, and I nicely asked that you replied here (I've been doing this practice for a while, mainly for long discussions). Thoughts on my last question? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling I'm repeating myself here... What exactly is your question—when should they be reported? If so, I have answered that three times now :\ AGK (contact) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes two of us. Okay, last time, when to report an editor to WP:AIAV if they are good faith contributors with a vandalism edit here or there? This was the case with 71.67.123.214. How many warnings should be given and how is one able to deduce? These things I want to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indentation) That deduction is made on a case-by-case basis, but, as a general rule of thumb, when the net effect of their contributions becomes one that negatively impacts the encyclopedia: that is to say, when they've become too disruptive to allow to continue to edit.

One can attempt to convince an editor to "turn a new leaf" through the use of warning templates—again, as a rule of thumb, if a final/high-level warning is issued, and the IP vandalises immediately afterwards, then it's time to take them to AIV. I hope this clears it up? AGK (contact) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This reminded me of another instance, where I dealt with a Peter Vogel. I now have a better idea of what to do with a sneaky user. Thanks anyway, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At the danger of complicating things, registered users are a whole other kettle of fish: final warnings are pretty much ever-lasting, within reason, with registered users—it's definitely still them that is operating the account, and if they vandalise after a final warning, even if (e.g.) 4+ days ago, they are deliberately ignoring the notice (whereas an anon. may actually be another individual, who is now using that IP). But that's not the question you ask, so I'll stop babbling now :) AGK (contact) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A difference? Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Methinks that this is something to be heavily considered. Now I'll use this new-found knowledge from here on. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. AGK (contact) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peripheral issue

On a related note, this edit concerns me, or rather, the wording of your edit summary does—"I already told you to reply on your page". That word choice carry blatant connotations of hostility, and a lack of basic courtesy, and I would appreciate it if you refrained from such interaction in future: indicating your wishes is one thing, but suppressing all communication and displaying obvious ill-communication is quite another. AGK (contact) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're taking that too seriously, I'm sure. It's just that when I tell someone to respond on their talk page, I'm dead serious. Guess I could ease up on my summaries. Sorry for any misunderstanding there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no worries—it simply seemed like an over-reaction :) No harm done. AGK (contact) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compliments

Thanks so much! I'm just glad to be doing my share for Wikipedia. :) Keep up the good work yourself. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) AGK (contact) 22:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHU/U

When clerking these requests on this page, please be sure to check the contributions of the editor requesting usurpation. Generally, an editor must indicated they intend to make good use of the name, and the bureaucrats determine this by number of edits. Users with few edits will generally be denied usurpation. In requests such as this one, it is important to note these things. Also, when you notify a requested account of usurpation, it is not neccesary to make note of this on the requests page. Superfluous notes by clerks do not help the bureaucrats, and WjB has requested they be kept to a minimum. Thanks. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, thank you for the advice: checking the edits of the requesting editor is clearly one thing that I'm missing out when performing clerk-related duties at CUU, and I'll make a point of implementing it into any future contributions in that area. Similarly for overuse of Clerk Notes—I was aware of the wish expressed by Bureaucrats as to the volume of notes, but did not think it was applicable; clearly, in that case, it was. Again, thank you for the notes. AGK (contact) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Lir

Note, this section was previously untitled. AGK has inserted the title himself. AGK (contact) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the goal of my mediation request. I was not asking for help regarding user conduct, but rather in order to mediate the content of my user page. I would like to have a user page just like everybody else has one, but clearly there is debate over what content is allowed on my user page. Thus, th the mediation committee certainly is an appropriate venue. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point—however, the issues clearly overlap into conduct issues in such a way that Mediation would not be suitable. Editorial conduct disputes such as this are best served with the intervention of a neutral, third-party administrator, rather than with formal Mediation. AGK (contact) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Warning

Hey I saw the warning you made here, and I was wondering, do you think that a final warning might have been too harsh? The user didn't really do or say anything offensive, it was just an uncompleted RFCU. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it was rather appropriate—it's clear that the account is creating pages for purposes that do not benefit the encylopedia at all. In fact, I was rather tempted to block, but opted to warn the user, and await the emergance of any further disruption before blocking. This is a case where I've opted to IAR for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. Hopefully this satisfies your query? AGK (contact) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the way you feel, I understand. After the whole Archtransit incident, I was just assuming good faith that the user actually might have tried to make a claim. Anyways, as I see it, the user has stopped and no vandalism edits have emerged, so all is well! Icestorm815 • Talk 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the enquiry ;) AGK (contact) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea where these are all coming from: Another one just popped up too. Rudget (?) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd, but it comes with the job :) AGK (contact) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poeloq 2

My bad, I hadn't realized I voted. Thanks for telling me. :) Spencer^T♦C 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's my pleasure. AGK (contact) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, AGK, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries! My support still stands, and I will (absent any relevant developments) offer my full support in any future requests—which, incidentally, I hope you file! I hope you do choose work on the suggestions from the opposing editors (e.g., improved RfA participation)—I think it will yield you an impressive boost. Otherwise, happy editing ;) Kind regards, AGK (contact) 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Well done for talking M1rth down from the Reichstag. Strike one for real-time communications. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment :) Things are getting a little heated again, but I hope I've still managed to make a difference. Time will tell. AGK (contact) 12:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block me if you want.

I find this by JzG to be an unwarranted personal attack and I think I deserve an apology. Not to mention that I've been informed from Alison that his block of me was 100% disallowed, outside of policy, e.g. abusive as such.

I'll honor the things I promised to you because I'm honest, but I am disgusted after having to go through that because someone as nasty as him gets to behave as if the rules mean nothing. The collective behavior of administrators has pretty much destroyed any faith I have in the wikipedia project and I'm going to think long and hard about whether I even want to be involved in it any more. I'd try to clean it up but I've already been shown that that's a losing battle when the problems come from people like that. M1rth (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

M1rth, as I made very clear in my discussion with you via IRC, it is essential that you disengage if you begin to feel angry. You will only begin to enjoy Wikipedia if you abide by its policies and act with proper decorum: give a little, take a little. Calm down, take a break, and leave the computer for a bit, have a cup of tea, or at least write an article—anything that doesn't bring you into conflict. I'm going to look into the matter, but in the meanwhile, keep well away from it: you'll only get yourself blocked—and I'm more than willing to be the one that does the block, if you don't abide by my requests. Please, just calm down—okay? AGK (contact) 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanx

thanyyou for looking into my case and resolving this. Could you help get my talk page sorted out, to how it looked before this blocking stuff, theirs all this wierd admin stuff on there and i cant return to my previous stuff. Realist2 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, glad I could help. Please bear in mind that you need to abide by Wikipedia's policies at all times—any future disruption will probably be met with a block, and you need to remember that. I have archived all the discussion to your archive pages, and replaced the archive box on your talk page—this will help you "start a clean slate". Hope this suffices. All the best, AGK (contact) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

New one. Rudget. 15:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not got it yet, but I'll keep an eye out ;) AGK (contact) 15:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you send to agkwiki (at) googlemail (dot) com, then I'll be able to pick it up ;) AGK (contact) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Received. AGK (contact) 15:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. :) Rudget. 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a reply, and a question to boot. Look forward to hearing from you ;) AGK (contact) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Y Replied. Rudget. 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

At the danger of turning this into a ping-pong game, I've replied again ;) AGK (contact) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BRB

Hi, i was wondering when? -- Cat ^chi? 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"BRB"? AGK (contact) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You told me you'd be right back its been about a week I have been waiting. -- Cat ^chi? 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Thanks for replying so promptly to my request. FusionMix 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) Use the tools well. AGK (contact) 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've a quick question: Is there a difference between 'rollback' and 'normal rollback'? FusionMix 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" rollback—perhaps you mean undo? AGK (contact) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I wasn't very clear. What I was referring to is the 'most recent edit' screen. Under the regular 'undo' button are two buttons, labled 'rollback' and 'normal rollback'. I recently rolled back a vandalism edit to Ballerina, and clicked 'rollback', whereupon it left a note on the user's talk page. Does normal rollback not leave a note? FusionMix 00:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not usually automatically bring up the user's talk page—it sounds as if you have some additional script installed (e.g., WP:TWINKLE) that's adding that functionality. Check your javascript page to see what's installed ;) AGK (contact) 00:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you've got Twinkle installed, which is adding that feature :) If you're not fond of it, you could always remove Twinkle. Otherwise, there is going to be both the ordinary rollback feature and the Twinkle version enabled. Best regards, AGK (contact) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I was wondering if that was the case. Thanks for clearing that up. FusionMix 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Page

Well done. You did it. Except you didn't. You haven't found my secret page - are you sure you were looking properly? Sorry... Remember: It's all linked. There's at least three possible pages... Hope to see you trying again, microchip08 (find my secret page!) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Can you give me some comments about the "quest"?

Oh dang it. AGK (contact) 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done. You did it. Congratulations. You found my secret page. Feel free to give yourself a pat on the back, unless you didn't actually go through my links... and did it another way, in which case you may add yourself to the cheat list. Have you found all my "red herrings"? Yours, microchip08 (find my secret page!) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But can you do Level II? microchip08 (find my secret page!)

How can you do that so quickly? Does it need to be harder? Did you cheat? (please reply on my talk) microchip08 (find my secret page!) 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty easy case of noting down the missing letters and appending it to User:Microchip08/ in the URL bar. No, it's probably not easy, I just get quite addicted to games :) AGK (contact) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the bits after that? And should I make it longer? Harder? microchip08 (find my secret page!) 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, honestly. It's actually rather pointless, but that's just my opinion :) I participated as I've a bit of an addictive personality, and wanted to find it ;P AGK (contact) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. OK. I extended it anyway; take a look at the end page, and it's been extended.... I'm not sure if this one is too hard... microchip08 (find my secret page!) 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See above note: Not finished yet... microchip08 (find my secret page!) 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Cheers! I'll prettify my userpage with that. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you deserved it ;) All the best, AGK (contact) 12:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review an unblock?

You were recently the unblocking admin for M1rth. Another user (Tiamut has asked if we should start a user conduct RfC. Before going that route, I would ask you to review M1rth's conduct since the unblock (just 2 days ago, I believe). I am concerned about edit warring, 3rr, ill-considered accusations of sock-puppetry and vandalism, incivility, removing talk page warnings, and a general unwillingness to discuss edits. Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for getting in touch. I will review M1rth's conduct presently, and reach a decision shortly. AGK (contact) 16:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit of background; these are two highly contentious users. Jd has multiple times attempted to re-enter edits previously traced by Contribs record to Jamiechef2 (talk · contribs), who was blocked for disruptive pov-pushing and sockpuppet abuse trying to insert anti-Israel bias into a number of food articles. Tiamut has been inserting some dubiously-sourced commentary with similar bias. Tiamut also has accused me of "mass blanking" a section of a page which had been the work of Jamiechef2, and was removed specifically to force her and her opponents to debate the proposed section on even footing after she started re-inserting Jamiechef2's work. I've warned them both now about the arbitration committee sanctions on trying to bias articles (especially unrelated articles) with pro/anti Israeli/Palestinian content, but the warning doesn't carry too much weight since I'm not an administrator. I am starting to get the impression that they think if they can muscle the mediator out of the way, they can have their way with the articles. :( M1rth (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Additional: trying to find you on IRC to discuss precisely this. M1rth (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • M1rth, join the channel #Cometstyles, and I'll discuss with you there. AGK (contact) 16:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see [6] when you get back in: I've been researching the issue of Tiamut's sourcing further and am now convinced she either is very confused on what constitutes a reliable/verifiable source, confused on what za'atar actually is, or is very confused on what a valid source for a comment really is. (In the interest of WP:AGF, I'm leaving a 4th possibility out of the equation for the time being.) M1rth (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)