User talk:AGK/Archive/31

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] Hi

May I suggest protecting National Revival of Poland‎ also? It's the part of the same conflict. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict by the same users, perhaps, but the content itself, that is being disputed over, is not the same. I'm afraid I won't be protecting it; I think blocks are now warranted. Anthøny 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question about the arbcom case. Shouldn't the other accused parties be listed as involved?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are additional parties to be listed in the case, I would suggest that that matter be addressed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. I am only the case clerk; there really needs to be an agreement from the Committee, that the parties you have suggested be officially added. I believe the official medium for requesting that parties be added, is through a "motion or request from parties", whereby one makes a request in that section, that parties X, Y and Z are added to a case. Anthøny 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Where exactly do I make this official motion? Thanks, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You may make it at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties. Regards, Anthøny 23:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!Giovanni33 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Oversight (hardcore)

Thx for revert-description brother! --62.158.94.30 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Anthøny 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation tips

I see that you are a mediator.

Over the last 2-3 days, I've added some very neutrally, neither pro- or anti- information about Barack Obama. Looking at the talk page, it can get very heated there. What is the secret to success in avoiding getting mud slung at me?

For example, even adding his mother's name is met with resistance. I put his mother's full legal name (as Obama was born to ...mother's name). What is the fuss? Why refuse to print her full name? I feel an edit war/edit attack is waiting to happen, even over very factual stuff. Why the fuss over such simple matter; you can image how more complex matter will result in even more fuss.

Advice on calming things down but still have the best edits appear? This is more preventative advice sought rather than seeking you out as a mediator. DianeFinn (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My overriding instinct is to say that the three pillars involved in editing harmoniously are: communicating well; knowing when to disengage and seek administrator assistance; and seeing it from the "other side". Allow me to elaborate, with some general advice:

"seeing it from the 'other side'": Whilst one shouldn't be overly apologetic (otherwise, we'd never get anything done), it is important to see things from the side of the disagreeing parties. Off-wiki feelings very often spill over onto the project, and that includes biases: in the Barack Obama example to which you have an involvement, editors who revert war may well be republican activists, for example. We are all human, and empathising with those that hold alternative schools of thought to yourself is important: try and reason, rather than biting back, when your edits get a hostile reception.

"knowing when to disengage and seek administrator assistance": Leading on, and exploring further angles, hostile contribution environments (from the sounds of your comments, eg. Barack Obama, yet again) can get to an unacceptable points. Whilst heated discussions cannot always be avoided, if edit warring, incivilities, and personal attacks are becoming the norm, and your edits are being repeatedly rejected and reverted with no apparent reason and without discussion, seeking administrator intervention is the way to go. File a report at the edit warring noticeboard if an editor is reverting contributions to articles without cause or discussion; turn to wikiquette alerts if you have problems with an editor who is repeatedly incivil. Ensure you have read, in full, the dispute resolution Wikipedia policy.

"communicating well": review this policy subsection, which is an excellent guide to discussing issues with other Wikipedia editors. Read Wikipedia:Negotiation for information on negotiating. Ensure you fully discuss anything that displeases you, but remain civil when doing so; when authoring a comment or a reply (on a user's talk page, on an article talk page, or elsewhere), remember (as I mentioned above) to see the other side, and when posting, ask yourself "will this comment improve the article related, and Wikipedia?". Try and communicate well with other parties, keeping the improvement of the project and full expression of your points at the core of your focus.

That's my general advice to avoiding conflict. You mentioned that you are having some troubles with editors disputing over whether the Barack Obama article should include the subject's mother's name. That's not something I will get involved in, as it's up to the article contributors to reach a consensus on the matter. Once again, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (and, in particular, #Ask for a third opinion, #Request a comment, and #Informal mediation) provides further information on whether you can take this content dispute for resolution. If all the parties engage in dispute resolution with an open mind, things will be a hundred times easier. Hopefully, at least. ;)

In summary, make your edits accepted by taking time out after making them to approach the parties that oppose the changes, requesting that discussion be undertaken (and, failing that, dispute resolution) between you all. Take time to consensus-build, and you will come out fine.

I hope this advice goes a little way to aiding you; best of luck, and have fun editing (it needn't all be serious!)

Anthøny 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions&action=history

What happened there? -- Cat ^chi? 18:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The requests for clarifications and requests for prior case amendment fork was originally intended to be an experimental movement, and no promise was made of it being permanent. Clarifications were later re-added to requests for arbitration, and are now located at WP:RFAC. The general complaint at the time of the re-merger (which took place in late April) was, the arbitrators prefer all "requests for the committee to consider *something*", something being replaceable by requests to arbitrate a dispute, requests to clarify an old case, requests to change an old case, et cetera.

The response here should provide further information.

Anthøny 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49

Howdy! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thank you for the delivery, WODUP. Regards, Anthøny 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DR

Re [1]: Kim Bruning talked about this yesterday in WP:Lecture #3 (not available yet). Was really interesting. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:12, April 21, 2008

Ah yes :) Anthøny 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent usernames blocks

Hi Anthony, remind to disable prevent account creation. Your recent usernames blocks are with this option activated. Cheers. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you, Carlosguitar. I was using the link that is embedded in {{User-uaa}}, the template one is required to use in a report to usernames for admin. attention. When manually blocking, I disable the account creation blocks, per the blocking policy, but the link to block accounts provided by that template does not disable that option. I'll make an amendment to the template; thanks again for pointing that out. Also thanks for tidying up after me, on those accounts. Regards, Anthøny 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thanks again for the notification; I'll certainly have a listen, as always :) Regards, Anthøny 16:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VandalSniper

Hi, I have applied for access to the vandal sniper. I have over 300 edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris19910 (talk • contribs)

Chris, thanks for notifying me. I've noticed your application, and will handle soon. Cheers, Anthøny 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aratta case

Thanks for pinging me; I am here, and have read your statement on the talkpage. Unless I have misunderstood, I will await your initiation of the process there. I will only mention two things at this point: 1) I'm not sure who the 'anonymous editor' you refer to would be; you said he also wished to become a party to the mediation? 2) The instructions on the case page say only the 'filing' party (myself in this case) is supposed to use certain sections, but it seems the other party's response should have appeared in a different section. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Til, I've removed the part about an anonymous editor. I look after too many mediation cases to remember every detail: I was muddling up with another case, to which an IP address was being added as a party. Apologies for the confusion :) You're correct: I'll initiate proceedings in a few days. I'll handle any further issues at that time. Cheers, Anthøny 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two 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: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (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! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Backlash (2007) • Fort Jackson (Virginia) • The Great American Bash (2007) • Jenny (Doctor Who) • New York State Route 9L 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: 211 articles (47 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 13 June 2008 | edit

Thank you for the delivery. Anthøny 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hi. I just wanted to comment your comment to my request for rollback. You used this two examples: [2], [3]. In number 1 just reverted a bad faith edit. The user deleted a MySpace source unreasonably. The number two example was not my opinion. It was based on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section. I would like to know what am I doing wrong so that I can correct it.--  LYKANTROP  15:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Response coming soon. Anthøny 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To-do (for my own use)

This seems like the quickest way for a to-do. Sunday, 4 May 2008:

• Answer talk page message re. rfr rejection,
• Open rfar,
• Deal with bad-issues on the rfm,
• Recategorise Steve's 24 cat's, per request,
• Forward banned user appeal to the AC,
• Deal with email from Scep.

Anthøny 22:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lehi (group)

Hello. Several months ago you protected this page based on my request at WP:RFPP. The editors involved tried to discuss their differences on the Talk page and I think the protection can be removed. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected. I'm glad to see the editors involved took their dispute to a relevant DR medium and had things resolved. Good stuff. Regards, Anthøny 12:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOP

MORDOR'S Jewish beliefs make his version of the article neutral ? I don't think so, but I'm ready for compromise as on the discussion page. I made article neutral, without POV sentences and non referenced statements + Mordor's criticism about the party. I think that ban was not needed to solve this problem. I would like to remind you of Mordor's actions and that his beliefes influence Wikipedia's articles from up to down. I don't have anything against Jews (my uncle is a practicising Jew) but I think that Mordor have to stop spreading only his point of view on Polsih related articles. Please, look at article about NOP now :

National Revival of Poland, version - 04:04, may 4 2008.

I agree with Mordor's Criticism (which is higlhy positive to keep criticism on anything in Wikipedia's articles because nothing is perfect, but criticism with head and NPOV policy).

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My short answer regarding this "I made article neutral, without POV sentences and non referenced statements". No you have removed referenced info and replaced it with unreferenced, or poorly referenced (nationalist websites, YouTube, Wikipedia are not reliable sources WP:RS) or simply untrue statements, such as this (Krakow "case was not classified as an offense"), when reference clearly states that, case was closed because no perpetrators were identified, and not because no offense was committed. And most important - you repeatedly inserted obvious POV such as "The movement conducted a campaign called Zakaz Pedałowania (Forbid Homosexuality)[8] as a reaction to the homosexual movement's aggressive activities in Poland.", "NOP members work for the good wealth of Poland by reminding random Poles of their beautiful heritage" and so on. M0RD00R (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi AGK (Anthony),

I noticed your message on mediation page as well as on Naadapriya's talke page. Do you want me to strik off the earlier issues and keep the content dispute related issues alone there? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I was planning to get in touch, but since you're here, we may as well do it on this page. Formal mediation only deals with issues related to article or page content, and not to editorial conduct. Issues of the latter category cannot be addressed by mediation from the Mediation Committee. Anthøny 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have struck my earlier listing and added issues related to the content alone. Hope a proper solution is found. Thanks for your help. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. I'll have a look just now. Anthøny 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Where do I go to report a typo in a MediaWiki file? Cheers, Razorflame 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I could fix it, if you wish. What is the mediawiki page? Anthøny 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the name of the media wiki page is, but when you click on my watchlist, and then edit and view watchlist, you get to a page called edit watchlist. I noticed that the A in article isn't capitalized. Shouldn't it be capitalized? Cheers, Razorflame 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan T. Gross and NOP

Why you hate me ? I am trying to discuss articles on the talk page and make them NPOV, look at the Mordro's editions - He always delete important things and add non-reliable sources. Maybe ypou should to ban him ? He don't wanna discuss anything, he jsut change everything by himself.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tell me what you need

You're under stressful times here, and you're getting nowhere fast. I think, however, the main problem is you're approaching things from the wrong angle, and with the wrong attitude. What is it that you need done? I will undertake my best attempts to help, so long as what you need is fair and warranted.

Anthøny 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a few minor suggestions (creation of a redirect, minor restructuring of rfar) and I have been almost crucified for it. I do not know. I do need the redirect to more easily link to the case.

• As it stands, I probably will be forced to link to the Davenbelle for the next 47 years if my past 3 years is any indication. I wil hand feed the community more evidence and links to past cases (which are less than fun to type). I do not expect this dispute to be resolved for decades. If I turn out to be wrong... Well I suppose that is a good thing.
• I also need to be able to follow discussions on ArbCom. I spend a good deal of my time editing from a shared GPRS connection which has a speed close to a shared 56k (its slightly less). It's sluggish as is. As much as I find arbcom to be completely useless when dealing with disputes, the incompetent wikipedia will not move a yoctometer to help me and delegate the dispute to arbcom like it did the past 3 years.

I intend to file an rfar case on Jack Merridew. I know there is a clarification but the overly complex long term nature of the case that seems to be a better way to address the problem. You being a clerk can probably make the transition better than I. Please make this transition. A clarification has a very high chance of disappearing for inactivity per my past experience.

I seemingly need to demonstrate mediation (a field of science I have no interest to) in order to abolish an arbcom remedy. Since arbcom has shown complete apathy on the matter, I have to do this all by my self. Fun thing is I am only interested in the removal of this non-expiring remedy. Currently the remedy only serves to help trolls. I am open to suggestions on getting this remedy off my back.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these realistic possibilities? -- Cat ^chi? 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deferring a reply to this until I have time to do the thread justice. Anthøny 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deferring until tomorrow. Anthøny 20:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)