User talk:AGK/Archive/28

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] Deletion

hey, i'm just asking for advice about a deletion policy. There is a page with a copyvio tag almost a month old that hasnt yet been deleted; where do i post to get it removed without the rigmarole of prodding it? It's David Meir-Levi in case you end up just doing it yourself. thanks!

Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ironholds. There is no official method to use to have a standard tagging "jump the queue", although if the situation is somewhat urgent, or otherwise requires immediate administrative attention, you can post to the Incidents noticeboard or Administrators' Noticeboard. However, since you have came directly to me, I have handled the tagging and reached a conclusion on the matter, and hence deleted the article. I hope this resolves your original enquiry. Regards, Anthøny 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anthony_cfc_bannner.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anthony_cfc_bannner.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. Kelly ^hi! 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded, cheers. Anthøny 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anthony_cfc.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anthony_cfc.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. Kelly ^hi! 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded, cheers. Anthøny 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Renameuserlogentry

Hi there. Please revert this edit. You probably looked at some very old user rename logs, which indeed show $2 instead of a user name; this is not the case with the current logs. —AlexSm 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for not raising the matter before making the edit; being bold has its disadvantages too, it seems :) The edit has been reverted, and I also apologise for any disruption. You are indeed correct in suggesting that I was viewing an older rename log, although it was not too long ago, actually. Apologies again, Anthøny 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Arbcom case

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but User:Xiutwel is requesting that you postpone closing the case before he has time to prepare his evidence [1]. If you've already considered this request, I apologise for wasting your time. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 04:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat unfortunate. Although I remark here as an editor interested in the arbitration process, rather than the case's Clerk, I will say that it is always something of an irritant, when a party appears at the last lap, and in this case when the case is literally progressing very much towards closure, and asks for more time.

Nevertheless, there is always the chance that there is indeed some very important evidence that the editor requesting the postponing has to offer, and that closing would be process for process's sake. To that end, I have annotated the Arbitrator's vote-to-close section, alerting them to the party in question's request, in order to ensure the arbitrators are at least aware of the request in question. Regards, Anthøny 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with many of Xiutwel's proposals, I do think it's important that this arbitration is seen to be fair. So thank you for your efforts! Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Regards, Anthøny 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Privatemusings. You are indeed correct in saying that I will most likely not be able to attend; of course, I do not expect every episode to be at a time that can accommodate all interested participants, and I understand your decision to schedule at the time you have. I still maintain my interest in participating in future episodes, and additionally, I will contribute on the 'cast's project page as you advise. Kind regards, Anthøny 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue Project News There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are 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: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (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! To delist or not to delist, that is the question So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination. This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies. Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article). Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise. Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first. Delisting instructions From the Editors As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) 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) • Justin Tuck • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) 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: 209 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 9 June 2008 | edit

Thank you for the notification, Derek. Regards, Anthøny 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal sniper application

I have applied for Vandal Sniper, It told me to let you know. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 07:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Gmail group

I think I added you a while back; did you ever get that? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, actually. I have just added you to my own contacts list; try now? Anthøny 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah...google now have @gmail and @googlemail. I tried to add you. We'll see. Thanks for the wellwishings. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries ;) And, apparently @gmail = @googlemail... Check the first collapsible section. Anthøny 09:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bah...you online now? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll sign in IRC, but I won't be on gTalk until later: I'm on Mac, which seems to not support the client :\ Anthøny 09:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

zing! [2][3] dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

popped by here to leave the note below - but thought I'd just quietly pipe up here too about the gmail, googlemail thing.... In the UK gmail is a trademark owned by someone else, so Google were forced to go with googlemail.. they're entirely synonymous though! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the same with Germany too, I believe? Anthøny 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 unprotection

I know you're an AC clerk and are acting in good faith... but I don't think discretionary sanctions = unprotection - 9/11 is, on the controversy scale, as inflammatory as Kosovo (which was under its own sanction and now under Macedonia). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, however, time to give unprotection a second show? How is it going so far (I've not yet had a look)? Anthøny 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Badly. Was back up on RFPP last night. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Resolved

I object to your change to the Resolved template. Can you pop over to the template's Talk page to address my concerns? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just popped over here to let you know I reverted the edit, and then found that ElKevbo already contacted you. Really, it looks bad, and something like a major change to the template's look should be discussed first. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll head over to Template talk:Resolved now, to discuss. Anthøny 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Anthony....

I've got a bit of an idea which I wanted to run past you; I wonder how you might feel about doing some 'clerking' over at the discussions for a new Wikipedia:OptOut policy? - It's something that I've suggested (the policy that is), and it's already attracted some comment. I'd like it to spend quite some time at 'proposal' stage - and wonder if the addition of a clerk to help organise / facilitate discussion might be particularly useful.

It would of course a) be a bit of work, and b) probably preclude you from commenting - both of which are good reasons to say no! On the other hand, some sensible refactoring (putting similar arguments together? creating sub pages? generally working collaborative discussion facilitation magic!) might really help move things forward - and I've often wondered why we don't do a bit more of this, given what I view as the weaknesses of a simple 'top down and keep on going!' wiki talk page structure. - perhaps this fairly new and quietish wiki backwater might be a valuable and interesting place to try something like this out?

If you're at all interested then that'd be great - and I reckon you should dive in and do what you think's best - I really think it might help! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, Privatemusings, I'd probably have found my way over there and 'gnomed a bit anyway :) Sure, I'd be glad to, although I'm wary of doing *too much*: that can often detract from the content of the discussion itself, impeding progress, rather than facilitating it. Did you have any "duties" in particular you'd like me to carry out? Anthøny 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hello Anthony or AGK.(whatever you prefer me to call you) I looked up random articles, and found something about a ventilator. It did'nt say anything, so I put it's basic description on there, and unless there's no other source, will begin looking up videos about it on You Tube. I do ask you to help me in any possible way, if it's not any trouble, as I could really use your support on this.Green Kirby (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony or AGK is fine, whichever you prefer ;) If you are suggesting linking on the article's page to a video on YouTube, then I'm not sure that's a very good idea at all. It's just not encyclopedic to link to a YouTube video on something, rather than getting all the information on the subject in the article itself :-) Relevant policy is located here. Remember, reliable sources are required for any statements which are questionable; if the statement is obvious, like "the sky is blue", then we really needn't cite a source for that, if one can't be found :-) On the other hand, if you've done as much as you can for an article, then you may as well move on. It's really up to you. Anthøny 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I know You Tube is'nt the smartest source, but it seemed the only source. I thought that there might be a bio about it on You Tube, but there was'nt. I can only hope that now I've edited it, others will do the same.Green Kirby (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just recently made an edit to an article called "Tony Almeida". Mabey you should check it out, see if it needs to stay.Green Kirby (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for coming to our NotTheWikipediaWeekly chat yesterday, and thank you for your patience with my first time at hosting. It was great to have you with us and I hope you'll join us again. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine ;) And you were a fabulous host, so no need to thank me :) Of course, thank you, for bearing with me in my first skypecast: I'm somewhat new to all this, and haven't yet developed the full "knack" to chattering away in a focussed manner that the rest of you have ;P Cheers, Anthøny 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stick Figure Empire Copy

If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected WP:BLP violation, I will provide the text for you.

Note that using the text to recreate a deleted article automatically qualifies it for speedy deletion, and keeping deleted content hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem.

I would like a copy of the deleted article Stick Figure Empire emailed to me at khmi6@verizon.net

Y Done, check your email. All the best, Anthøny 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rbaish

Hi Anthony, I noticed your comment on Rbaish's talk page. With all due respect, I think that was a little understated. I don't know if you read my entire post on AN/I, but the main thing that prompted my report was this ridiculous personal attack by Rbaish on my talk page. Given that post, I think a block (probably a long term one, but at least some form of block) is far more appropriate then your suggestion to the user that "it's time to spread your wings." Also, since you were responding to the AN/I report, I'm wondering if you might say something about it on AN/I itself so folks know an administrator has weighed in on the issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale concernes regarding Image:24 the game interrogation.jpg

Hello. As requested as part of the images for deletion tag, I'm contacting you to let you know that I have further improved the image's fair use rationale (providing a full link to where the image was originally obtained), improving on the portion and size and explicitly describing why the image was used. It is one of few gameplay screenshots released by the publisher as promotional that has not been further watermarked by a third party source, and so was felt suitable for inclusion in the article. It was also felt as appropriate as it shows in detail how a critically acclaimed and well received aspect of the game worked. Further, the article has gone through thorough WP:VG Assesment, Peer Review and GAN, where the use of this image was initially requested and then approved.

Should further detail or information be required, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. If you have any concerns about the non-free use criteria for this image, please can you provide them in detail as the deletion tag did not list them explicitly, while the requirements the tag linked to were already fulfilled.

Finally, thankyou for your interest in this article and your work on it. Even though it's left me a little confused, it is appreciated all the same. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Myah OS

That kid yet again has removed the template and reposted false information. I have emailed you with no response. This page needs to be removed. The only thing he is doing is trying to harass people. That page has false information about me and Myah OS. Remove the page!

[edit] problems at Wesleyan University

I'm kind of in an edit-war over at Wesleyan University, and I was hoping you might be able to help somehow. I've tried taking it up on the Talk page, but to no avail. The other person(s) refuse to discuss their edits and are openly violating NPOV. Thanks. -- Irn (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some advice I often issue to those who are edit warring is located here, which I suggest you take a look at; I'm happy to direct other warring parties there, should the disruptive editing resume. I have also looked at implementing a protection on the article, but I don't think its prudent at the moment, due to the lack of recent activity. I do hope that you chose to invite the other parties to some serious dispute resolution, rather than continuing to war: trust me, it helps nobody. In fact, the best thing for you to do right now, is not make another revert to that article: if you do that, you'll be fine ;) Cheers, and thank you for contacting me, Anthøny 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by serious dispute resolution. I took it to the talk page, and the other person(s) said (in a nutshell), "I don't care about NPOV. I'm not participating in this discussion further." Given the reluctance to discuss, but not to stop reverting, I'm kind of at an impasse. --Irn (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was indicating that, perhaps as dispute resolution attempts had cumulated in edit warring, that they weren't being treated with a wholly serious attitude? Forgive me if I'm incorrect in stating that; it was simply a logical link between the statements you'd made. With regards to the comments you stated were made by the other party; I'm going to have a look into the matter at hand. I'll get back to you soon. Anthøny 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion there. Yeah, the edit warring was about to begin/had just begun. As I had tried discussing it, and the other(s) involved stopped responding, so I editted the page. Part of that edit was deleted. I reverted it, inviting them to re-join the discussion; that was then reverted. So I came here instead of continuing in that way.--Irn (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'talk page clerking'

hi AGK - I thought I'd let you know that I've dropped a note in at the talk page of WP:BOO asking how editors there feel about trying out some possible 'clerking' - the sort of things I was thinking is the unifying of threads making similar points, the creation of either sub pages or sub areas to discuss specific aspects of the proposal (ie. does it conflict with NPOV etc. - and there are many more self-evidently 'groupable' issues) and stuff like that. I don't want to influence you at all in what you might do, because the whole point is to have an independent eye make calls like that - but I do think that a measured, but active hand (ie. fairly large structural shifts in the page) might help loads - and it'd be interesting to try out as a concept... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)