User talk:AGK/Archive/29

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] VandalSniper Application

I have applied for Vandal Sniper. I know I have not had recent activity, but I have been busy this past few months, and will become more free starting Apr. 21, and will monitor a lot more starting then. --Aremith ^Talk 03:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a few applications sitting there at the moment, so I'll head over now, and handle them all. I have noted your point about inactivity, and will certainly factor it in. Regards, Anthøny 12:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Handled. I've approved you; I see no worries. Cheers, Anthøny 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melody Amber chess tournament

About the page protection at Melody Amber chess tournament. I think there has been a misunderstanding here. A list of the books is a valid part of the article and the talk page dispute (which is rather contrived anyway) has been imported from the Dutch Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no misunderstanding, I believe: this seems a case of two parties, disputing over how suitable certain aspects of an article are, and who have taken to manifesting that dispute through revert-warring. Am I wrong in stating that? Anthøny 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but this is the first time I've seen a page protection applied over such a simple issue. I've stated my opinion on the talk page, but the consensus there is being muddied by other issues imported from the Dutch Wikipedia, so you might want to look at that (telling the Dutch Wikipedians that this is not the Dutch Wikipedia). See Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Alexander Hamilton

Hi Anthony. I'm a little confused by your acceptance of this case - I can't find any indication that Shoreranger (talk · contribs) has agreed to the mediation. I've removed the acceptance so I could check with you. Am I missing something? WjBscribe 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah good heavens, I slipped up. If you cast your eyes up, Ryan asked me to accept a Mediation. I proceeded to do so, not realising that: 1/ I'd clicked the wrong link; and 2/ The parties hadn't yet agreed (I'm unsure if Ryan didn't know that, or did, but intended the case to be accepted once consent had been given). I would revert myself, but you've already done so. Anthøny 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image information required

Hi there just a question I would like to ask about an image, on whether it can be uploaded or not. On the website it does not say it is copyrighted or not and is the public domain with many pictures, but I am not sure whether it is copyrighted or not, please view the webiste and reply back to if it can be used or not on a Commons license, Thanks a lot. Bye. Image Link: [1] Moshino31 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say no, that is not uploadable. This doesn't look freely licensed. Sorry if this gets in the way of your article authoring. Anthøny 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected Mediation Case

Dear Anthony, this note is in reference to this mediation case, which you recently rejected. I'd like for you to see Ryan Postlethwaite's note here in which he says that this case will in fact be accepted. Curious what happened? Bstone (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi AGK: For some odd reason, Bstone cannot accept rejection. In spite of the fact that he started a still open RfC against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 where the vast majority of editors disagreed with him and where there are still motions that have not been brought to closure, his next complaints were rejected at ANI, and still not able to deal with that he went ahead and started a RfA which was rejected by the ArbCom, and now after he has been informed that his RfM is rejected as well, he comes here to probe why that has happened, but which comes as no big surprise because he cannot accept rejection and is avoidant of any meaningful direct discussions with me either at his or my talk pages or at WP:JUDAISM where my initial complaints against his nominations to delete synagogue articles/stubs caused him to be outraged enough to keep up the barrage of RfCs, ANIs, RfAs and now RfMs all falling flat and being rejected and he evidently cannot deal with that. He needs to stop his attacks and slander against me and come face to face with me, the sooner the better, and talk to me directly rather than violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS (what else to call it?) and wasting the time of so many editors, admins and committees. If he does not, then I shall consider filing some motions against him on the basis of all his failed attacks against me as outlined above. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a response to the initial enquiry, you guys have attempted very little in the way of prior dispute resolution: structured discussion, third opinions, or informal mediation. All of these are very much necessary to attempt and fully exhaust in a dispute; only if they are fruitless, or unresolved issues still remain, will the Mediation Committee consider taking a dispute. Formal mediation is very much at the latest stages of the dispute resolution process, and the fact that the intermediate steps of that process have been jumped (defeating the spirit of the DR system: make maximum use of all available mediums of resolution) means that the case was never going to be accepted at its current stage. I'm not sure why Ryan suggested it would be speedily accepted; perhaps we wasn't fully familiar with the dispute, but unfortunately only he can answer that query. At the dispute's present life span, however, acceptance from the Committee is not forthcoming. Anthøny 12:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well color me confused. I have tried informal mediation with IZAK, which failed. Ryan said for me to file it with the Mediation Committee and it would be speedily accepted, yet it was rejected. So, what now? Bstone (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did this informal mediation take place? Did you file a case with the MedCab? Anthøny 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, the informal mediation attempt happened here. I have not filed with MedCab as Ryan told me to file with Mediation Committee and it would be speedily accepted. Bstone (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The link you just provided me with is certainly not an attempt at mediation. I'd strongly suggest you now head over to the Mediation Cabal and file a case. Anthøny 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony you beat me to it, I was going to laugh. The link provided by Bstone was no "mediation" attempt. In that response I pleaded with him NOT to do what he was doing by running to outside third parties but to stick with the already started discussions at WP:JUDAISM which he abandoned. It is one of Bstone's tactics that when other's disagree with him, he does not try to understand them or talk directly to them, but proceeds to inflate and inflame the matter by seeking outside views from editors not familiar with the subject under discussion. All very sad and hugely time-wasting. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I will head over to MedCab and file the case. I will just say that I am getting a little frazzled by constantly being told "go here, it'll be accepted right away" and having that not be the case afterall. I am really curious how Ryan might respond to this case being rejected when he clearly stated it would be speedily accepted. Bstone (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bstone; Kindly stop setting up editors and admins against each other please, it is most unbecoming and a waste of everyone's time. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, please accept the case for me. I've already expressed to the parties that I am willing to take the case after they filed a request for arbitration. Some of the arbtrators even suggested letting MedCom take it. I'm in Egypt on holiday at the minute but I'm planning on taking it the minute I get back. --Ryan Postlethwaite 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, you mean this case? There has been no prior attempts at DR... Well, if you're sure, I'll accept it. Anthøny 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent a fortune on the internet so I haven't really got time huntinng diffs now, but take a look at my contribs where I made the offer to mediate the case after some arbitrators suggested medcom taking it. --Ryan Postlethwaite 13:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I shall take your word for it, and accept it to allow you to mediate it when you return. Have a great holiday, btw ;) Anthøny 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi AGK: FYI update: See User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bstone vs IZAK. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NtWW invite

Thanks very much for the invite, but my Skype isn't working properly at present. Maybe at a later date? Anyway, I just dropped Tim Vickers and Acalamari a note, as I'm considering a second run at the tools (my first was mid November, so I think it's been long enough). Check out Tim's talk page for an update, and remember I'd gladly accept a co-nom. Thanks, VanTucky 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem about the Skype; it's an open invitation to any trustworthy, established Wikipedians, so you're welcome at any time ;) I'll whip up my co-nom statement presently, and post it whenever the RfA goes live. And so it begins! Anthøny 19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VanTucky 2, and it's not on the RfA main page yet. :) Acalamari 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Anthøny 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the great co-nom! Is it still appropriate for me to make a statement after my acceptance? VanTucky 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is! You can say as much as you like, although you need to be careful not to overwhelm the readers :) Perhaps just a few words about your last rfa, and anything else you view as specially important. Demonstration of competence can be saved for your answers to the questions; and a note, folks who previously had rfas that were controversial (your's was a little, methinks) tend to get more "optional" questions. Try and answer them all; if you are unsure about any, don't worry: you aren't an administrator yet :) Just email me, and I'll answer you, all hush-hush and secret ;) Otherwise, good luck. Cheers, Anthøny 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race of ancient Egyptians

Note, retitled from "race egyptians". Anthøny 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

funny how you protected it after the version of the page that was being disputed and rightfully so was restored than you edit protected it sometimes i have to scractch my head on how biased many wiki administrators are--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AGK is not at fault here; I suggest you read m:The Wrong Version for more information on this matter, Wikiscribe. Qst (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

i did not say wrong version and second he came in a little late with edit protect being revisions had ceased and if you looked at the disscusion page we were working toward a resolution but the edit protect was put up at the riht time for a certain party lol and instead of an edit protect why not join the discussion and help clear it up no because that is what biased admin. do edit protect the version they like, ciao--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I barely understood any of that. Is there any chance you can speak in proper English? AGK doesn't make the decision to protect a certain revision or when to protect it, he will have protected the page when he saw the request which had, at the time, not been dealt with. Qst (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a very long answer authored out here, but to be honest, Qst manages to say it in under a line. I protected as soon as I noticed there was an edit war, as a measure to limit the disruption. I did not time my protection to favour any particular party (incidentally, I'm completely uninvolved in this edit war, and protected as a response to the edit warring, further to a requests for page protection report). Kindly refrain from hitting out with these sorts of accusations; it's completely unfounded and unsupported by fact. Anthøny 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

mr. administrator could you come again with that statement in proper english,you appear to have made gramatical errors in your response as i did and qst had so smartly pointed out--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I did. What do you not understand about my last response? Anthøny 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikiscribe - I was talking about your response which began with "i did not say wrong version...," AGK's response was grammatically correct. Qst (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya

Hey there, AGK. I know you from Simple English Wikipedia. I have a question for you: I remember seeing a userbox for users who have been granted rollback permissions, I just can't seem to find it. Can you help me? Please respond on my talk page as I tend to lose conversations here. Thanks, Razorflame (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, nice to see you. I believe you're looking for {{User wikipedia/rollback}}? I hope this helps.
Anthøny 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo

I can't remember what content it really had on it, but the deletion triggered my watch list. I thought we weren't supposed to delete talk pages for sock puppets? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, this talk page isn't being used for the sock puppet documentation and tagging, so I think it's fine here. Would you rather it was restored; I'm happy to do so if you wish? I don't see a problem with that, and it's no trouble to me. Anthøny 08:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it. looking at the google cache page for it, it did have a lot of discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored (a few days ago actually, I just forgot to annotate this thread). Incidentally, Ned, you clearly have some thoughts on the temporary wikipedians issue; why not offer your input at the thread discussing the deletion of indefinitely blocked, banned, and sock puppet pages, and whether such deletions are warranted? I'm sure it would be appreciated. Cheers, Anthøny 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you have participated :) A lot! Well, page restored. Thank for getting in touch. Anthøny 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

You might have the wrong person or log in account or something!; I rarely involve myself in edit wars concerning Middle Eastern politics. I do recall reading that article, but considering I've noticed there is an overwhelming hegemony of dogmatic discourses concerning that person, I no longer bother looking in that article. No need to bother contacting me, not really interested in hearing from you. Respect. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Response coming soon. Anthøny 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your addendum ("no need to bother contacting me"). I shall leave you be. Anthøny 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bringbackthetylers

This is absurd; how much longer is this user going to gain respect and sympathy for violating our core policies? He commits WP:BLP violations on a regular basis; he's received five warnings, the last three of which were "final". He has been given information on what content is permissible, and how to ask for further help should he need it. He's obviously never going to be a worthwhile contributor... so why are we letting him hang around and harm the 'Pedia? —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just commenting on this AGK, after thinking it over and looking at their contributions, I'd say any block would be unnecessary in this case, at least not yet. Your rationale here I agree with completely, seems I made an error of judgment I only just realised. And, why aren't you on Skype? :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Popping out just now, so I'll get a full reply back to you as soon as possible. And Steve, I'm off Skype, because I'm now off ;) Anthøny 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any news on this yet? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Response. I'm not really sure what to say, TreasuryTag; a block on this user, at the time of the report, was simply not warranted. Although I hesitate at picking out fine procedural points on you, the user was last warned a good while ago. I'm simply not comfortable slamming a block on a user that's had one recent warning. However, I will say this: from here on in, after my final caution, I am fully prepared to block the account for disruption, if further ill behaviour occurs. Does this satisfy your original query? Anthøny 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your opinion of "one recent warning", then? The user was warned three times on the 1st April this year, one of which was final, and was given another final warning on the 13th April. I'm bemused as to what more we could have done... can you think of a good-faith reason why the user would still not be obeying the simple messages on his talkpage? —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The start of a month we're now almost half-way-through is certainly not my definition of recent, anyway. Anthøny 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He was given another final warning on the 13th April. And can you think of a good-faith reason why the user would still not be obeying the simple messages on his talkpage? Because if not, he's acting in bad faith. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents worth here, but as far as I can see, adding unsourced information, added in good faith, is not strictly not vandalism. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, prima facie, but if (as in this case) the user has been repeatedly referred to relevant policies and has failed to make an effort and read them, it is not showing a desire to help the project, is it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your closure of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd) was premature

I was surprised to see today that you closed the subject SSP report without reference to, first, the most significant evidence, which is the table of edits at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd)/Evidence, and in particular the pattern of transitions between edit sessions, with it being common that one account edits intensively for a period, with the other being inactive, then the active account switches. This pattern is striking and unmistakable, over long periods of time, with many repetitions, and only very rare instances of some level of interweave, with at least one of these almost certainly being a special effort made to create the appearance of account separation.

Then there is a pending Checkuser request that has not been fulfilled. This part is not so important, because it is expected that Fredrick day would be, in recent times, taking special care, knowing that he is being watched; I expect that he was ordinarily quite careful to isolate the accounts, not only in pages edited, but also in IP used by Seddon69. However, he could not go back and change the striking patterns present in edit timing in 2006-2007.

I did not see any sign that you examined the table placed in evidence. I was in no way finished with presenting that, in terms of pointing to exactly what in the table shows the connection. Originally I did not want to put up the table because I considered the technique of identification sensitive and it was possible that checkuser evidence would make it moot. However, because nobody requested the table (I'd offered to send it by email), I did eventually prepare it and put it up for anyone to see. Did you look at it? Have you seen the transition phenomenon that is so striking? If this appearance is deceptive, can you explain to me how I erred? Would you consider re-opening the report? Perhaps it should wait until I complete the presentation of the evidence. I'll continue with that and in Talk for the SSP report. --Abd (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just leaving (I just caught your message) for the night. I shall deal with your enquiry tomorrow, when I have more time to devote a full reply, rather than one that is spread thin, and hampered by tiredness :) Apologies for the delay, and thanks for your patience.
Regards, Anthøny 03:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem. No rush. I'm going to continue working on the presentation of the evidence.... which to me remains very, very clear, and nobody showed a sign of actually having looked at it as needed (and thus this may need further, clearer explanation). There is no emergency, Seddon69 is a good hand editor and isn't likely to cause any damage at all; as I wrote on the Talk page, I think it was, his record of good edits, even if he is Fredrick day, might help to allow Fredrick day to return, though I'm afraid that Fd's behavior during this SSP report did not help that cause at all. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner; I'm popping out just now, and am busy in RL for the next few days. I don't want to rush a reply to you; I shall get a full response posted as soon as I'm available to author one. Apologies for the continued delay, Anthøny 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: archiving by MiszaBot III reversed; re-posting thread at page bottom. Anthøny 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I shall keep this brief, because I am very much convinced that there is no sock puppetry in this situation. Indeed, there is a lot of coincidental evidence: editing habits, timing of edits, etc. However, it has also been pointed out by a checkuser (user:David Gerard, who is a highly experienced on at that–he was the very first checkuser) that it's probably just a coincidence. Further checkusers came back Inconclusive, due to the lack of editorial evidence. I also got in touch with Seddon, via Skype, and discussed the matter; there is also the unavoidable fact that Seddon is active in his educational establishment at certain times that you cited, and can, indeed, vouch for that with his official schedule. This convinced me that, although there is some circumstantial evidence on this matter, the evidence to the contrary is much more convincing, and to that end, I drew the conclusion that the editing habits were simply an unfortunate coincidence: after all, not every wikipedian is going to edit at exactly the same time.

To answer your above query, I am afraid I wouldn't consider opening the report, simply because doing so is 1/ unnecessary, and 2/ likely to prolong this investigation unnecessarily. On your further query, I don't think you erred here, and in fact, you were correct to pick it up. However, the matter was thoroughly investigated, technical evidence (checkuser) sought, and every fact duly considered. There is simply too much strong evidence against the accusations, and to that end, it's proper to assume good faith, and put the matter to bed. Anthøny 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is great to know that proper attention was given, plus, of course, we did find two sock puppets. I will myself give more attention to the method of detection used, and attempt to develop a less subjective measure of edit correlation, and I have been studying the Mantanmoreland case, seeing how the same technique applies there. I'm sure that everyone will be more careful going forth. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. I myself think you handled this great, even if not 100% on the mark, and that you've realised now's the time to put the matter to bed is a very positive thing ;) Anthøny 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need your assistance

Hi AGK. This guy has been adding countless numbers of small, minute edits that aren't constructive. I've assumed good faith in these edits, but all of them seem to be unhelpful (for example, changing dates from 1852 to 1859, though the source says 1852). I've reverted the majority of them, yet they still continue to do it. I've left him a pretty descriptive warning about it to no response. Is there anything you can do? Am I in the wrong? The majority of his things reflect his personal view, not NPOV. phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You were correct in saying that the anonymous editor was behaving disruptively: looking through only today's contributions, I'm seeing an awful lot of questionable edits, section removals, and introduction of a non-neutral point of view into a select few articles. I have enacted a 24 hour block, to prevent further disruption, and will monitor the situation closely post-that block's expiry. I have also recommended the editor create an account, and get in touch with me, for some basic "tutoring" on Wikipedia's norms and procedures. Hopefully s/he will take me up on that offer, and we can convert another one to "the good side". Thanks for getting in touch, and for seeking help with thos, PhoenixMourning. I hope my block enables you to get on with things :) Cheers, Anthøny 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, Anthony. I've left a lengthy (for my standards) explanation on his talk page in his response to his statement o n my talk page. If it isn't too much trouble, could I come to you for help in the future with this user or any other problems I may have? Any help is greatly appreciated :). By the way, feel free to critique me/give me some pointers on my response; I like helping people out and I'd like to know if I'm at least doing it correctly. Thanks! phoenixMourning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on poor conduct

Out of curiosity (and this isn't an attack or anything of the matter). Why are her notes on poor conduct acceptable, but when I start compiling a similar list of poor conduct or post in my userpage that a list is being compiled on me, it's an attack? I feel that if someone is going to take the time to compile a list of why I should be banned, I have the right to compile a list of reasons why I shouldn't and how this user who is cataloging a history of my conduct is leaving out her contributions and instigation. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You certainly do have a right to a counter-argument; can you point to where it was stated that you may not have that page? Tangentially, I'd advise you to not compile that page simply "because the other user has one"; the content of that page needs to be necessary, and the arguments contained therein valid and non-disruptive, if you please. If you're sure you're doing it because you genuinely think you've been wronged, then go ahead. But yes, the links to where you've been told you aren't allowed that page, please? Anthøny 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been told that I can't, but I am accused of assuming bad faith in the list of reasons to ban me, and that I am creating an attack page. (tangentally, how can one assume good faith for something like this anyway, especially when the accuser has stated in the past that she is "done assuming good faith with me"? (I'll find that quote in a minute, but I want to get it in here so I don't forget...)) I'm trying for it not to be a "because this user has one" page, and I do feel that I am genuinely being wronged because Miranda does not like me. I am compiling a list of "my side", as well as where this user has done the very same things she is saying I should be banned for. I'll work more to keep it so my arguments are valid and non-disruptive, but as the page is still under construction, there will be some rough edges until I am done. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Tylers

Could I draw your attention to this, and remind you of your pledge that the user would be blocked if they ignore your final final final warning. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to forward this to another administrator, or to the incidents noticeboard/vandalism reports noticeboard: I'm unfortunately unavailable at the moment. Anthøny 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's not done by the time you're next available to block, rather than to just edit your talkpage ;-) then maybe you could see your way to doing it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Temporary userpage

There seem to be fewer than 100 transclusions. I'd be happy to go through and orphan it, but that's not a lot of transclusions for a speedy AWB run. It might take weeks if you removed one per day or something. Is there something I'm missing? IronGargoyle (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I wasn't aware the figure was that low... It would be useful if you orphaned it, if you had a moment or two (I'm almost-completely unavailable atm), but otherwise, I'll do it when I return. Anthøny 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug seems to have gone through and removed ones that were redundant with indefinitely blocked templates and the like before the discussion was over. I think that explains the confusion. I'm orphaning the rest right now. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikipediaWeekly Episode 45

Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

[edit] The Tango Arbcom

I notice your comment here[2] and thought I would respond to you directly, as I presume it refers to the limited analysis I carried out earlier. I wasn't about to invest hours I did not have into creating a full-fledged documentation of the blocks until I knew there was going to be an actual Arbcom case; I trust you can understand that. I will be working on such a document over the next few days between other commitments, but given that I am fairly hopeless with wikitables (which is probably the best way of laying it out) it will take me quite a bit of time. It will, however, eventually make it before the committee. It is my intention to be as neutral as possible in commentary. Perhaps you would like to work with me on this? Risker (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem: evidence is often comprehensive by its very nature, and I don't think anybody was expecting it to be delivered immediately after case opening. Certainly, that was not the intention of my post (to demand evidence immediately); whilst I was indeed directed towards you (well, your school of thought: it was, in practice, simply directed towards any that were in agreement, that Tango has had a history of poorly-thought blocks), it was more a registration of my opinion that evidence was generally required, rather than an immediate demand. I'd be glad to help you: if you post the relevant evidence on-Wiki, I'll try and transfer them into a table format (I'm generally not bad with wikisyntax); perhaps we'll develop at a subpage of your userpage? My intention (through helping you develop) is to improve the transfer of information in this dispute: if the evidence is as plainly presented as possible, this whole incident can be processed smoothly and with as little kerfuffle as possible. Anthøny 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

Hello, AGK/Archive. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy. Your name has been mentioned in the discussion concerning a request for mediation by Breadh2o (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email). Yours, --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another problem

Hey Anthony. The problem we had about a week ago has arose again. Specifically, this guy once again is making un-constructive edits (for example, see here, here, and extensively here--the latter of which he s/he has continued to do). I'm requesting your help again because you have seen first hand the un-constructiveness of some of their edits. Thanks, phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Have you read the vandalism policy? --Pixelface (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)