User talk:AGK/Archive/33

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] Just to keep you content

ŠeDDøΛ ^talk 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The improvement is marginal. :) Anthøny 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanford-le-Hope

Protconflicted, so I went with yours :P. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

*rubs in Slakr's face* :)
Nah, joking. Thanks for the courtesy, although I'd have been glad to have went with yours. ;) Cheers anyway!

Anthøny 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Smith AfD

Please look over my contribs there. I'm uncertain I'm calling this correctly. --Dweller (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to review. I'll pop over and take a look shortly. Regards, Anthøny 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

<ahem> :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Commenting currently. ;) Anthøny 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have offered my thoughts on the matter. It's also been a close one to call for me, Dweller, and I'm still of two minds on the subject; I certainly don't want to be the closing administrator for that discussion: nothing jumps out at me. Ultimately, however, I think the most accurate course of action is that the subject's notability hasn't been established; that's textbook non-notable.

Hope this helps a little.

Anthøny 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! 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 00:43, 29 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. Regards, Anthøny 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:ACM2

I wonder if you might take a second look at this fellow. Although he (I say 'he' as it's rarely a female who resorts to this level of dickheadism) claims to be retired, the disruptive edits continue. Although this may no longer fall under sockpuppetry, I suspect that this is simply because this user's short block has expired, and he no longer needs to revert to it. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I plan to pop by suspected sock puppets in the next day or two, so I'll make an effort to visit your case first. I'm pretty busy at the moment, however, so forgive me if it's not possible. The backlog there isn't as bad as it used to be in months gone past, so your report should be handled by another administrator eventually, if I can't get to it; as I said, however, I will strive so long as I remember. :)

Best, Anthøny 00:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest easy on this, another admin has indefinitely block the user. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The arbcom case

I know you told me to wait a little more but at this rate the case itself will be closed before my request is properly considered. :) -- Cat ^chi? 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see it was archived as I warned you. That was three days ago. I am less than happy right now. -- Cat ^chi? 11:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Response below; apologies again for the delay. Anthøny 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom closing

Rlevse told me to contact you about this. Where would you like my assistance? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good day there. I've already caught Ryan on IRC, and hooked him into helping me close the case; you're more than welcome to join us. The motion to close is currently not passing, so I'm not going to set a "time and date" for closure (I usually don't anyway, but I plan to for this case, to allow both Ryan and yourself to attend the entire process).

When it's getting to within ~1 day of closure, I'll give you a shout (email, talk page message, or IRC ping) with the time when I'll be closing the next day, and we'll take it from there. ;) Make sense?

Anthøny 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:CorticoSpinal

Hi there, A WQA was filed against User:CorticoSpinal recently for an instance of incivility (or personal attack) citing this diff [1]. You seem to have conditionally unblocked the user early last month, and may be more familiar with the situation, so you may wish to make a note or something. For this particular incident (treated as an isolated one), the user has been warned. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I don't vividly recall the incident with that editor; I handle too many matters to remember them all, I'm afraid. :) I will visit the incident in due course, further to your request, although I'm not going to promise action: it appears Cortico has recently been blocked, which may resolve the matter.

More to follow; this matter is probably best considered 'pending'.

Anthøny 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal has exhausted the patience of the community. CorticoSpinal has been given a chance. He has violated the conditions of his unblock. Please review. QuackGuru 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this matter being handled by an administrator, or does it require my intervention? Anthøny 10:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this - was just making a note out of a WQA that I was handling. Doesn't require you intervention specifically (not sure if complainants will disagree but in my view); particularly if you don't remember the incident that well. Will post back if needed in the next few days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthøny, I do not see any admin handling this specific situation for your controversial unblock or the behaviour of CorticoSpinal. This requires administrative intervention. QuackGuru 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, QuackGuru, but I think you have read this thread incorrectly. My unblock was perfectly valid; it was Crtico's conduct that was lacking. Please bear that in mind in future comments. Anthøny 16:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The unblock was conditional and CorticoSpinal has violated his conditional unblock. Since you are the unblocking admin, I would like you to comment on this serious matter. See WP:ANI#User:CorticoSpinal. QuackGuru 17:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

← I am aware that there is an ongoing thread, and that my input is request. I do not need to be continually reminded, if you please. Anthøny 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal outed the same editor again by providing a link to a website that reveals the real life identity of a Wikipedian. This is indef-blockworthy. CorticoSpinal was previously blocked for this. QuackGuru 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have indefinitely blocked Cortico, per the reasoning at user talk:CorticoSpinal, and further to my independent review of his conduct. I would like to note, however, that this is further to private requests for review, rather than in response to QuackGuru's somewhat relentless requests to look into this; Quack, in future, please try and be a little less reserved about things. It sort of appears like you're trying to push me into blocking a user with very little consideration about the merits of the situation.

Matter resolved. Anthøny 18:54, 31 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)

My apologies for the delayed response.

Your first proposal appears to be to create a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. I see that as a very achievable proposal: there are already redirects in place for arbitration cases that: 1/ have a long title; 2/ are heavily linked; for example, WP:ARB9/11 goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. Would this be the sort of thing you're looking for?

You need to be able to follow lengthy discussions: the arbitrators have been pretty against subpages for requests for arbitration requests, although I don't really see what negative difference it makes either-way. I'll make another pitch to the Committee for these if you like, but I doubt it's going to make a difference.

You wish me to file the RfAr. I'm afraid that's not really sensible: I have nowhere near the experience you have in the Jack dispute, and I really wouldn't be able to successfully 'pitch' to the Committee. I would chip in a statement if I had anything of note to say, but that would be a decision I make upon reading the thread.

Removing the mediation ban: I will contact the ArbCom and/or file a thread with them in due course, regarding this. The remedy has been in force long enough, and it's not really fair on yourself any more. Whilst I see the merits of it being in effect, I think the time is right for the Committee to fold it.

Anthøny 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you create a short redirect for me?

Dividing it to two would half the load time. Its better than nothing.

No I wished you to convert the appeal into a case before it got removed. It is a bit too late for that now I know and I may file a new case right now, I know. It would be better for a clerk to make the conversion.

This can be discussed in the new arbitration case. I am not fond of appeals as in my experience appeals have been all removed over inactivity by arbitrators.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:ARBDAV for the new shortcut. Anthøny 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. About the new case someone aside from myself should file it. The community stated that it will not accept status quo and delegated the matter to arbcom. -- Cat ^chi? 11:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding the RFAR, I'm afraid I won't be filing it: I have next to no involvement in this matter (especially compared to that which you have), and I have insufficient experience to consider filing a request with the Committee. That particular ball remains in your court, I'm afraid.

Anthøny 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you Fancy

...reviewing User talk:Steward2007 and his request for unblock. Now, my block was a touch on the harsh side I admit (minimal warnings etc.), however I believe justified. Nevertheless the unblock request reason seems like totally fair comment about my mis-handling </sarcasm> ... Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Worry not, already done! Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies about not getting here quick enough. :) Glad to hear it's sorted. Regards, Anthøny 23:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries my friend - just saw you were on-line and thought it better to get it dealt with speedily. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Spy kids Trilogy

Hello, Anthony/AGK, I hope you're doing ok. I just finished seventh grade, so I'll be making edits and being on Wikipedia quite often over the next eight weeks. On wikipedia articles, every movie should have a section showing the reviews of it, I believe. Well, I looked up the spy kids trilogy, and noticed that only the third film has such a section, and it was'nt much, only stating what it got on Rotten Tomatoes and comparing it to the previous two films. Well, I added a review section to the first two films, sorry, but all I knew were the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, it's better than nothing. I also added some opinions on the third film. Could you check on them and make sure they're allright? Also, I went on the talk page on Juni Cortez's(A spy kids character) article's talk page, and notcied that an ip user said "Juni sucks". I went on his ip, and noticed that this user's only made three edits, and none of them are article edits. Could you tell some rules about Wikipedia, I don't think he/she's been here very long, and does'nt really understand Wikipedia. Thanks.Green Kirby (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Greek Kirby, I hope you're well.

I am not overly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on "reviews" section of articles, so I can't comment on that, but I am willing to go through some articles that you've recently worked on (as you requested) and double check them. Would you like to post me some links to specific articles, or will I just check some from your recent contributions?

Regarding the anonymous editor, that sounds like vandalism to me. For information on dealing with vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism; as stated there, one needs to offer the vandal sufficient warnings on his or her talk page. If the warnings are repeatedly ignored, you may request that the account be blocked by a administrator, on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Anthøny 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as checking my edits go, whatever's easier. And I have given the user a warning on the talk page.Green Kirby (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fez

I don't see how you get the clerk Fez hat up on your page. Can you get it to appear on mine in the upper right too? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The code is at User:AGK/Header; if you edit that page, the icon code is 10-15 lines down. Just do a control + find for "arbitration clerk", you'll come to it soon. ;) I can add it to your userpage if you like?

Anthøny 17:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I got it on my page, but it's way to the left of wiki-tan and it's off a bit horizontally. Please fix for me. I'd like it on my talk page too. Then dare we add it to the pages of the other clerks? Thanks in advance for fixing mine. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I'd say definitely don't add it to the others' talk pages: there was a big fuss about that a year or two ago, and an editor got trouted quite hard for adding it. Best wear your own Fez; if the others don't want to look like Proper Clerks, that's their problem. :) Anthøny 19:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I'd already started, but I'm undone myself. I'll post on the noticeboard. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoted quotes good, footnoted quotes good....

Dear Anthony. Forgive this intrusion on a subject that only tangentially concerns you, but I note that you are the clerk on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes. I am not sure of the locus of dispute, *but* I am concerned that the use of footnoted quotes is being deprecated in some way. I've always found them incredibly useful in resolving uncertainty, they make citations easier to check, and lots, lots more. I don't know if a RfA is the best place to raise my hands and go "Are you nuts? Footnoted quotes are the best things evah!" (probably isn't <grin>) but it'd be silly if a discussion ended with the conclusion "Well, we are consensually agreed: footnoted quotes suck." without me pointing out that actually, they suck not. So the questions I need to ask you are:

1. Does that RfA concern the desirability or otherwise of footnoted quotes?
2. If it does, where do I go to point out that they are really, really nice things and should be cuddled?

If this discussion is nothing to do with you and/or I have the wrong end of the stick, apologies. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saw this on Jimbo's talk page and couldn't resist :)

		The WikiHaggis
		I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines. Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{WikiHaggis}} on someones talk page!

Steve Crossin (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh heavens... Thank you, Steve. It appears that the relentless stereotyping is no longer limited to skype. :) Anthøny 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] READ THIS

hi, i recently created a page called 'the chosen one (novel)' and i would like to know why. aparently it was 'blatent advertising' but i feel that that is incorrect. it 'advertises' in it than the 'harry potter' page advertises the harry potter series. i would like a copy of my page which was deleted, and an explanation as to how the page is advertising a product. imore than this i would like to have the page reposted to wikipedia. please reply to this as soon as possible.

--Mikeyv92 (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Pumper

Hi. I've only just noticed this, but back on the 13 November 2007 you deleted the article on Brian Pumper for being a recreation of deleted material. Could you please check to see if the article included a list of award nominations? I have a vague memory that it did, and if so, I wonder if you could undelete it, to save me having to write a new article. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 18 Released!

Hey there AGK/Archive! Not The Wikipedia Weekly Episode 18 is now available. Listen to it on the episode's page.

The episode is an interview special with the candidates for the 2008 elections of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. It includes interviews with english wikipedia candidates such as Ryan Postlethwaite, Matthew Bisanz.

From the Not The Wikipedia Weekly team -- ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this message from Addbot as you are listed on the delivery page. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. If you know about anyone that might want to be added, consider sending them a message.

Hi there, I would just like to point out that this is a slight error, Although the page has now been created ready for the sound files the sounds are not currently there and all link to episode 16. Sorry for this message, I will resend a remind once the files are confirmed and uploaded. Thanks. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Hi Anthony, I come for advice about the dispute resolution process. Now that the RfC for John Howard has collapsed, what dispute resolution processes can be used to solve such a content dispute? I was hoping the RfC would determine what the community consensus is regarding the content. But now that it has fallen though, how does one determine the consensus without a mediator? Have you followed any prior cases with a large group of editors who are prone to passions, incivility and edit waring, who are not all willing to engage in mediation? It seems unfortunate that mediation gets shut down when a couple of people don't wish to attend. When the majority of involved editors are willing to mediate, it's a pity that it can't proceed, as it would still establish a consensus formed by the vast majority of editors. Have you seen similar situations in the past? Regards, Lester 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfB

Hello Anthony. I would like to nominate you to become a bureaucrat and this is a formal request for you to consider running for the position. Please drop me a line at my talk page and indicate whether you would or would not be interested in tipping your toe into the maelstrom of RfB. FWIW, I think you'll make a great addition to the ranks of the Crats. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll run. :) Will cross-post to your talk page. Anthøny 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfArbitration

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Timeline for incident:

You said "3 June 2008: MZMcBride is still performing mass-scale actions (logs);"

I don't think any of the June 3 deletions were problematical. They were listed as R1 deletions. If they really were R1 they were redirects to nowhere and properly deleted. The two redirects that were restored look like a case of bad input: Whoever set up the redirects in the first place failed to create the destination page, making it reasonable to assume the redirects were truly broken. Not being an admin I can't check the remaining ones. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, your timeline doesn't include some important points (mine doesn't either, but then discussion got so spread out it was hard to follow - again, part of the problem). I think MZMcBride's communication problems are long-standing, and boil down to two things: not wanting to discuss "obvious" deletions with a lot of people (seems happy to discuss off-wiki or on user talk pages and sometimes at some policy pages), and a flat refusal to participate an ANI - presumably due to a strong or principled dislike of the atmosphere that sometimes prevails there. See [2], [3], [4]. It is extremely difficult to bring an ANI thread to a successful conclusion when faced with a flat refusal like that. It is possible to negotiate separately, but that causes discussion to fragment. It should also be noted that MZMcBride did eventually provide a statement on their talk page about the specific incident, and why they archived the talk page when they returned. See here. That occurred after the unblock, but I can see that someone who feels that the block was unwarranted would want to wait until the block was lifted before posting that. Some of the points made are: "I decided to archive the talk page and begin with a tabula rasa" and "I have a long-ish standing (personal) policy not to post to AN/I" (though someone has pointed out that this is not entirely true and has quoted diffs), and "I'm more than willing to discuss my actions on my talk page, if reasonable people are willing to come to the table to discuss" - regarding the last point, I have a principled objection to discussion of deletions after the fact, especially when the deletions occur in such large numbers. I would be willing to discuss proposed sets of deletion beforehand, but it is frustrating in the extreme to point something out to MZMcBride and get an answer along the lines of "yes, but <insert reason> so I don't think undeleting is needed here". Part of the problem is that though MZMcBride does a large variety of useful automated wikignome editing and admin tasks, the volume can obscure seeing the overall picture, and his other work should in no way obscure or excuse or remove the need to discuss anything that is reasonably questioned - MZMcBride seemed to see the 17 talk page threads as a mob, but they were different people independently being alerted by their watchlists to this set of deletions - it seems that MZMcBride has abdicated responsibility to deal with the fallout from that set of deletions, and that the community discussion has taken it away from MZMcBride. On the other hand, MZMcBride did say here that he had restored all the redirects of "talk pages where the subject-space page wasn't a red link or a redirect". I had hoped he had done that for all the 1000 or so that fit that criteria, but it seems he was only referring to the ones pointed out by Ned. Presuambly, because no-one had come to his talk page to specifically ask him to undelete the others (or had been too vague about it), and so undeleting the others wasn't on the agenda. Other examples of debate (but little action towards undeleting) after the deletions include: [5] ("I'm a bit torn as to whether to restore those redirects or not") and [6] ("But, you're right, there probably wasn't any harm in keeping them") - but the attitude seems to be along the lines of 'well, I've deleted them now, so why bother undeleting'. I don't think I'm the only one to find that attitude frustrating. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out a possible future conflict that might need to be nipped in the bud: see here and here. In other words User:ST47 is running a toolserver script to restore (after discussion) a limited set of the deleted redirects (around 1600 out of around 6000 - mostly the archive subpage redirects and the talk pages outside of article talk space). See User:ST47/restores. That should be pretty uncontroversial. What I'm concerned about is "I'll also be making lists for MZ's and other admins' previous deletes of this type for community's review." - I worry how MZMcBride will react to that. I'll notify MZMcBride and ST47 of what I've said here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

Ooooo! Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you accept, I'll transclude. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've co-nominated you. —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you realise you have to ask for the candidate's permission before adding a co-nomination right? Rudget (Help?) 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking of Bsrboy

Hi Anthony. Re your message on User talk:Bsrboy - I wasn't present at the IRC discussion last night, nor could I have been. Can I get a copy of that discussion? I am involved in this case: I submitted the checkuser on Meaty Weenies, and then instead of immediately blocking him myself, started the discussion at WP:AN where a consensus was reached. Basically I would like to be assured that you took all factors into consideration when changing Bsrboy's indef block to an effective one of just 32 hours on this editor. Best,  —SMALLJIM  22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good day, Smalljim. I understand there are some enduring concerns regarding Bsrboy's conduct on wikipedia, and I have very much recognised all of them. Indeed, it took a lot of consideration on my part, to reach the decision to unblock: deciding whether or not an anti-disruption measure on Bsrboy's account is still required is not the easiest decision I've had to make.

All factors have been taken into account here, and I fully understand that this is a fairly contentious decision; it's now up to Bsrboy to not let me down. You can rest assured, Smalljim: if Bsrboy's ability to edit results in disruption for the project, I will be restoring the previous blocks. Bsrboy fully understands that, and I hope the observing community does too.

Regards, Anthøny 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I see that when you unblocked me you archived the previous unblock discussion. I thought that I should tell you that there was previous comments left on my talk page before I was blocked that were deleted to notify me of my block. I think that these comments are best archived now. But I don't know if you think it should go in the other archive you made or in its own archive. I'll leave this for you. Either way since they were such a long time ago they wouldn't be appropriate on my current talk page. Best regards bsrboy (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, Bsrboy. I personally prefer to archive all messages, including block messages on previously-indefinitely blocked users' talk pages, so I'll go ahead and pull out the previous notifications presently. Thanks for notifying me of this. Regards, Anthøny 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it myself, putting them all in one archive. bsrboy (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and good luck

Hey anthony, I just wanted to thank you for your participation in my RFA and also wish you luck on your RFB. (oh, I left some thank spam below). also, feel free to comment at my in-depth RFA analysis. best regards, xenocidic (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good luck in the RFB, and congratulations on the successful RFA. ;) Regards, Anthøny 10:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland Squad 1996 European Championship

Why did you delete the Template:Scotland Squad 1996 European Championship article? There have been recent dicussions about European Championship templates, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_26#Football_templates, and all of those articles have been kept Ck12 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Ck12. As you can see from the page logs of Template:Scotland Squad 1996 European Championship, I deleted the template further to a consensus-building discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 13#Template:Bulgaria Squad 2004 UEFA Europe cup; it was decided in that discussion, that that template (alongside a number of other related ones) should all be deleted.

I trust this answers your query? Anthøny 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfB

Was looking through your RfB, specifically Support #13 I thought you might enjoy this:

		The WikiHaggis
		I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines. Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someones talk page!

Its the award I created, Enjoy! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My second one thus far. :) Thanks, Kennedy. Regards, Anthøny 10:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You've recieved the WikiHaggis before? Who may I ask gave you it? I'm glad its use is spreading :D ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Hi, Anthony. I have responded to your comment on my remark at RFAr. Cheers, and best of luck in your current RfB! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The case has now been rejected, so it's not really that important now, but all I said was that I agreed with you, but that, as you said, the "underlying" issues did not (yet) merit arbitration, and that the allegations concerning Pilotguy's out-of-line deletions may prove a concern and require some form of intervention or discussion, but were not really relevant to the "wheel war" between MZM and Pilotguy nor the case as outlined by Physchim anyway. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, Anonymous; thanks for pointing me to your reply: I would probably have missed it otherwise. :) I certainly concur with your opinions there (presumably because they're also mine :). And thanks for the good luck on the rfb. ;) Regards, Anthøny 10:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rollback

Hey, you're in the category of admin's who're willing to grant rollback features to deserving users, so i thought i'd request it here. I spend a large chunk of my time reverting vandalism, both through the recent changes page and new users log, and i think it'd be quite helpful. If you decide I'm not yet ready for the responsibility that's perfectly understandable; get back to me with any suggestions/reasons and i'll implement them. Thanks for your time! :). Ironholds 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Ironholds. I've Y Done your request; check out my notification (and the advice therein) on your talk page.
Anthøny 10:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Roll-back

Been using Huggle to revert vandalism for about a month now and the new version has been released and required roll-back authorisation and beens you were on the list of Admin's who are willing to grant the status I thought I'd get in touch. Please let me know whether I'm granted the status or not if it's possible. Ta very much. Tresiden (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's already been sorted. Sorry for wasting your time. Tresiden (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding, and for not getting to this. Glad to hear it's been taken care of; and not at all, you weren't wasting my time. ;) Kind regards, Anthøny 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'll leave this to you. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heya Dweller; I've put in my two cents there, although I'm looking for further examples. Thanks for the note, Anthøny 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your message

[7] I try to keep conversations in one place, but in this case I wanted to make a point of thanking you for initiating a response. I see you've linked through with PeaceNT and mentioned it in your edit summary on the RfB, and I'm happy to play host to these points if you feel uncomfortable tooting your own horn on the RfB page itself. Glad I had the foresight to tidy the page up a bit earlier today! ;-) --Risker (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G33 arbcomm

Is this case going anywhere? If any arbs have contributed in the past age, I've missed it. If they're waiting for people to stop fiddling, they will wait forever. What state is it in? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if progress has indeed stalled on this case. It may be worthwhile pinging the ArbCom mailing list (details), asking for a status update; alternatively, wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee could be used.

Either way, I think a ping is needed for the Committee. If you don't do it, then I will. :)

Regards, Anthøny 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; raised with them [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:rollback

Ok, thanks! i'm reading through the documentation now, although i wont really be able to break the tool in until after my exams. Ironholds 05:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the exams. ;) Anthøny 11:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Thanks, AGK/Archive, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements. Thank you again. AngelOfSadness talk 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. ;) Check out your talk page, for a slightly longer comment. Regards, Anthøny 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is 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: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. 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. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (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! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) 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

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the delivery. Regards, Anthøny 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Optional Qs

You got some optional questions from me at your RfB. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted; I've withdrawn the RfB. If you still wish them to be answered, however, I am willing to oblige. Anthøny 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppeteer returns

Hi. A while back, you helped out a bit with AzLehrer, who was using anonymous dial-ups in Israel to circumvent blocking. He just came back today from the same domain ([9]), and I wanted to give you a heads-up. His usual pattern is to show up, revert war vigorously for a few days, and then vanish again when he sees he can't make any headway. I'm tempted to ask for a pre-emptive sprotect for his usual target articles, so he can't edit them anonymously and start another revert war, but I leave it to your discretion. Thanks for any help or advice, Dyanega (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also just noticed: he simultaneously went after these same articles on the french Wikipedia, where he has ALSO been banned. See [10], for example. As I've said before, this editor simply refuses to give up, no matter how many warnings he is given. Dyanega (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into this presently; watch this space. Anthøny 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pruzhinki

I noticed that the page about the t.A.T.u and Rammstein album, Pruzhinki dissapeared, do you know why it happened or if it was a mistake? I never saw a 'nominated for deletion' template on it as far as I know. --General Jazza (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a copy of Baroque Typing

I wish to have this page I created emailed to me, so I can "beef it up" before resubmission. mattiator (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm going to decline your request here, as it seems from your rationale, that you are going to use the deleted content to re-add it to Wikipedia (with some expansion). That is not the purpose of accessing deleted content: it was removed from Wikipedia due to concerns regarding notability; it would not be appropriate of me to grant you access to the material, simply for it to be re-added to Wikipedia's article space.

Apologies for the inconvenience here, Anthøny 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

I appreciate your concern and I hope I didn't bite a sincere new user, but I was active on RC and NPP patrol yesterday and saw what turned out to be a LOT of Grawp's socks doing precisely the same thing. I later thought about posting it on the noticeboard instead of the AIV, but I noticed it had been deleted. In all the years I've been editing this site, I've never seen such vandalism and, sadly, good users may get bitten and for that, I apologize. I have nothing but the best of intentions for this site and its good users. Thanks for the advice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. ;) I didn't think you were doing it on purpose, but it did attract my attention and I wished to make you aware of my concerns. Thanks for taking them on board so graciously, and happy editing. Regards, Anthøny 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Hi AGK,
Thanks for taking care of my RFPP for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I was wondering, is it possible for you consider a longer protection period? I've already detailed the reasons at WP:RFPP. I believe that the users/IPs in question will not be deterred by a one-day protect and will resume their revert-warring after the lock expires. If you see the history of the page, they came back even after a prolonged, 7-month protection period. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Max. If you look at the discussion section, you will see there have been numerous attempts by me and other fair minded editors to discuss the content and reach a consensus, but sock puppets ignore the invitations and just revert. It is my opinion that since they know the page has been protected in the past for longer periods, they just want to revert ad hoc, and play the odds that their friendly version will be the one that gets saved when the lock is put in place. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellows. I was originally not going to plump for installing a protection on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), but I think a longer time frame is necessary here to prevent damage both presently, and in the near future (as you have asked for). However, at the same time, alternative, long-term strategies need to be developed: protection is not something that can be used forever, and using only that to prevent disruption on that article is actively stifling its development.

I have extended the period for which the article is protected, to 6 days. At the same time, however, I'd like to encourage the editing community of that article, to look into alternative approaches of maintaining a balanced, steady article for our readers: start discussions, and look around for how these disruptive contributors' efforts can be combated. As I say: we can't be using protection forever on the article; alternative strategies must be developed.

Anthøny 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand - the constructive editors of that article are engaging in discussion. The sockpuppet accounts engaging in the revert wars, making edits without explaining them, have refused to engage in discussion concerning their edits and improving the article.

Every time this article is unprotected, the socks re-appear and it starts over. They don't communicate, they just revert to out-of-date versions of the article. This article was protected for about a year before -- and still those who object to the content for some reason wouldn't talk about it.

A permanent protection status would be useful, I think. Any changes could be performed by administrators after agreement is reached on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, Amatulic. I remain uncomfortable, however, with the idea of fully protecting a wikipedia article on an indefinite basis: that's a pretty serious move. I think the best bet at this point in time, would be to get a consensus for fully protecting (indefinitely) on the talk page; then, show me that agreement (just post me a link here, to the discussion), and I'll move to protect as necessary. Apologies for all this messing-around, but protection isn't something I'm inclined to do lightly: I'd like some serious thought put into it by the article's editorial community first. Anthøny 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we resort to such extreme measures, we'll see if we can control the abuse by reporting the sockpuppets. Both Max and I independently created sockpuppet reports. I got distracted and didn't finish mine at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonu1008, and Max created his at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonu-nn. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, for extending the lock to 6 days. It is sufficient time for the revert-warring faction to come forth and discuss. If they refuse to do so and continue in their ways after the lock expires, we can think of the next (more severe but perhaps necessary) course of action. Regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do I do with this IP Vandalism?

I believe that User talk:79.118.181.114 has been editing Wikipedia as other IP addresses as part of an IP range. This IP has made a personal attack to a user, but never got warned. Your take on this would be very helpful. bsrboy (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bsrboy. It's quite plausible, that each of those IP addresses are the same individual, who will edit from what is known as a "range" of addresses. In cases where blocking one IP address does not work (the individual may have a dynamic IP address, which means he or she can simply change the IP address they edit from), a m:range block can be installed on this individual's "IP range". To put range blocks metaphorically: individual blocks on IP addresses will block a lane or two, meaning the individual can't drive along that lane; however, he or she can simply change lane, and continue travelling (vandalising). Range blocks put a block on the entire motorway (highway), preventing all travel from a certain 'area of town' (that is, contributions from that individual).

Of course, this is quite a rough measure: collateral damage is quite possible (other, innocent and constructive editors who happen to use the same highway as the disruptive person will be blocked from 'travelling'). In this case, I'd say the damage from this guy is relatively small-scale; a range block is probably not needed. From here on in, I'd suggest that you just warn all IP addresses that disrupt (and request blocking, if need be); if you notice the disruption is intensifying over the next few weeks, and suspect it is still this same individual, please feel free to give me a shout, and we'll take it from there.

For more information, check out mw:Help:Range blocks; wikipedia:blocking policy#IP address blocks; and wikipedia:blocking IP addresses (especially #Range blocks) for more information. For information on dealing with IP addresses that make disruptive edits, see wikipedia:vandalism#How to respond to vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism#Warnings.

Anthøny 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a in depth explanation. I, myself, actually have a dynamic IP address, so I know how it works. As for the IP, if I see one of these IPs doing more disruption elsewhere I will issue a level 3 warning and then if the IP persists a final warning, if the IP still persists I'll request for block. If the IP persists (with another IP address of course), I will request block straight away. One more time and I'll ask you about a range block. Along the way I will inform the IP about the dynamic IP and that Wikipedia can put rangeblocks in place. bsrboy (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. :) Anthøny 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back...

after a bit of a break. I'm sorry I wasn't more supportive during the RfB. I'm even more sorry it failed. I'm glad you are finding positives from it. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. ;) Please don't apologise: you did wonderfully, and thank you for nominating me. I'll be working on the concerns expressed (some I can't really work on, but some–such as my low rate of article editing–I certainly can, and will), and improving and developing... As we all are.

Best of regards, Anthøny 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy Notification regarding my recall criteria

Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Heya Pedro; not a problem. I'm honoured that you think so highly of me. ;) I'd be glad to be included in such a role on your recall page, and I'll happily act as necessary, should a recall situation arise (as I am highly sure it won't, considering your fundamental reliability to practice good conduct :).

Best regards,
Anthøny 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sonu-nn

Please read my response toward the bottom. You protected the IIPM page. Do you want to block the suspected sock puppets also? Yechiel (Shalom) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)