User talk:AGK/Archive/9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Activity level: full • Current activity: observing

This user is an administrator of the English Wikipedia.
This user is an administrator.
This user is an observer on the ethnic edit warring work group.
This user is an observer on the ethnic edit warring work group.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee.
This user is a member of the Mediation Committee.
This user moderates the VandalSniper application.
This user moderates the VandalSniper application.
This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.
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.
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.

Contents

[edit] Your message above

Thanks for your reply! I wanted to let you know that above you say For extra-Wiki contact, feel free to reach me via IRC at #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks and #wikipedia-en on Freenode, email me internally or externally at anthony [dot] cfc [at] cfc [dot] com, or flag me down on Google Talk. - #wikipedia-checkuser-clerks is invite only, so it's kinda hard for people to meet you there, and since it's the first one, an inexperienced user may just give up after that - may want to note that or simply remove that channel? ST47Talk 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I'll do that now! Cheers ~ Anthony 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Vandal 216.186.65.***

This anon (which you blocked earlier) appears to be using a range of IP addresses and has now vandalised my page here. can you look into it? Thanks R. Baley 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sysop has blocked the specific IP that vandalised your page; however it looks like a Range Block is required. Being a newbie to the Mop myself, I'm not willing to undertake such a complex action at this time; perhaps you should visit WP:AN to request assistance? Anthony 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm relatively new to this aspect of wiki myself. I did report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The vandalism has appeared to die down, but I will probably wait to remove the comment for a little while longer to be sure. R. Baley 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username block

Can I ask that you unblock the user I claim ownership of the universe (talk · contribs) as discussion of their username had just been initiated. In all but the most blatantly offensive cases, discussion is attempted first. ViridaeTalk 01:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done — where is discussion being held? Anthony 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The username was posted to WP:UAA, I requested more input, HighInBC removed the posting because someone has posted {{Usernameconcern}} to their talk page. I went to ther talk page to request a clarification fo the username and found you had already blocked them. ViridaeTalk 01:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem; I wasn't aware discussion was actually in progress - the user that posted {{usernameconcern}} was the one that actually requested the block at WP:UAA, so I wasn't alerted to discussion. My apologies - this is my first night with the mop (I'm the newest sysop at the moment) and so I'm still getting used to these new buttons! Forgive me, and see you around ~ Anthony 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No problems, I had seen your RfA and that you are new so totally forgiven :) ViridaeTalk 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question 12

Congratulations on the success of your RfA. I would still appreciate it if you wouldn't mind answering the question I asked as "question 12"... WjBscribe 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I'll answer when I get the chance ~ Anthony 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. WjBscribe 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
;) ~ Anthony 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your customised warning

see how it spills out the box?
see how it spills out the box?

Is so beautiful and calming, but the image is a little large and spills out of the box, at least for me, here. Good luck with the new tools, fun isn't it?! --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It spills out of the box? A look at that page flags up no worries for me - are you using Internet Explorer by any chance? Anthony 01:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It spills out using firefox for me, as well. I can screencap if you'd like. —Ocatecir Talk 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies - I have no idea what screencap means :P Anthony 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a screenshot? I'm on Firefox too, Laptop resolution of 1400 x 1050. Your text takes 9 lines for me, including you two sig lines so the white box isn't big enough for the relatively long image. --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
There you go --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) hmmm ... all right then, if "screen cap" shall fix it, go ahead - just try not to spoil it :P ~ Anthony 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I think. That image on the right there is a screenshot/screencap showing you the problem. You'll have to fix it yourself ;) --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, so I can't fix it! Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do ~ Anthony 02:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've done all I can; I've had no other complaints, and it even renders fine in IE, and that's a hell-uva feat :P let me know if it's any better ~ Anthony 02:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that kinda reminds me of "someone's" customized template, dear Anthony... ;) Phaedriel - 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Nay, my dear friend - it was inspired by "somebody else's" :P nevertheless, thanks for reminding me to put a note of credit! Whilst you're around, how are you? ~ Anthony 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, hey, Mouse displays "my" Template, read what he says! :) Seriously, it's a compliment that you liked my text. I prefer to think that blocked users may yet be gained for our cause, and seeing a beautiful flower and a line of encouragement instead of a stern hand hopefully can make a difference - so keep on spreading the love! :) And cheers on your promotion, which I supported with pleasure, Tony! Have a wonderful day, Phaedriel - 05:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) ah :P well, it's a Wiki! By the way, I've credited you at the talk page of my block template; again, my thanks (and let those thanks apply to your RfA support - much appreciated). Take care ~ Anthony 05:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Post script — I agree whole-heartedly with you there; a pleasant block template is much nicer than a large stop sign and no words of encouragement. After all, we don't want to drive potential new editors away, do we ;) ~ Anthony 05:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block log entries for 3RR

Firstly, there's a problem with this block log, which should probably be tweaked.

Secondly, with this format, remember that the 3RR entries are archived pretty soon after being dealt with. This means that the linking to the report is ineffective. Basically, you could drop the "See here" bit (which is what most admins do), or say "See here: ", 1 which is yucky. Most administrators say "3RR violation at Article, reported to AN3" or just "3RR at Article".

Just a FYI. Have fun with the new tools, and remember that you will have a block/deletion/protection overturned - we all do - but don't reinstate it blindly without discussion! :) We can't afford to lose your services for something so silly.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's some good advice! I only noticed the error in the block log after I'd enacted the block, and I didn't see that as grounds for opening up a window of oppurtunity for a blocked account to wreck havoc - unlikely as it seems :P "don't reinstate it blindly" - I've already had experience of that (check my Archives) ;) my thanks for your advice ~ Anthony 02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool idea for the block log: when the block finishes, reblock with autoblock off for 1 second saying "Fixing prior maleformed reason; should have read: x"...just a thought :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to make a note; why on earth I'm posting this here instead of IRC, I don't know, but nevertheless ... ~ Anthony 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ADOPT input

Hello, AGK. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look later; thanks for the spam notification ;) ~ Anthony 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indentity

I confirm that I (AGK (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)) am AGK on IRC ~ Anthony 03:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: 202.146.15.20

This user is constantly vandalizing pages on Wikipedia, and it seems that WP:AIV is not working or no admins are on it. This IP is part of a school, and maybe that is why AIV is helping, but I was hoping you can do something, or explain why something isn't being done. Thanks. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry! Already done while typing! Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Was just about to say that :P let me know if you need anything further! ~ Anthony 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Anthony, thanks for the beautiful words on my talkpage. I really appreciated them! I'm going to be around (I can't stay away for too long, *sigh*) but I'll probably be somewhat less active than usual. I'm feeling a little less miserable and sorry for myself now, so that's always good ;)

On a happier note, congratulations on passing RfA! I saw some of your admin actions and you seem to be going well (hey, you've closed 6 MfDs, which is 6 more than me!) :) Lemme know if you need a hand with anything, I'll try my best to help out :) Take care, – Rianaऋ 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and as I said, take care of yourself! Oh, and thanks for the RfA congrat's :P see you around ~ Anthony 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement

Hi. With regard to this block: [1], all the blocks for parole violation should be recorded here: [2] according to this: [3]. Regards, Grandmaster 05:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I wasn't aware of the system that was in place to record blocks, etc..., on editors involved in the case. My gratitude for bringing it to my attention - I'll be sure to bear that in mind! Regards ~ Anthony 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. Grandmaster 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa

Just a quick note of congrats to you from a Yankee for your successful Rfa! I was happy to vote for your nomination, and I look forward to seeing your positive effects on Wikipedia even more from here on out. Jmlk17 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block template

I just reviewed the block of User:Purgatory Fubar here, and noticed your block template. Any special reason why you aren't substing this template? Also, the template seems to have a couple of problems. For one thing, in this particular case, the block was for 3RR but the template was describing that as a type of vandalism, which really isn't right. For another, the picture is overflowing the box (at least, for me it is). Welcome to adminship btw. Mangojuicetalk 16:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, in this case, it was a 3RR violation at WP:ANI, not WP:AN3. Not super critical, but it was a little fuzzy from the block log, and will be even more so once the request on AN3 is archived. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mangojuice re. referring to a 3RR violation as vandalism. "Vandalism" is probably the most often misused word in WP discussions, and it's important for admin.s to avoid adding to any actual or pretended confusion. Nice photo, though. RedSpruce 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem; thank's very much for your advice - I'll be sure to implement it. Apologies especially for using a generic term (vandalism) rather than a more specific reference: I'm normally very specific with edit sumamries, etc..., and this is unusual to slip in standards - I shall be sure to avoid such slip-ups in future!
Kindest regards,
Anthony 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Hello, congratulations on your recent successful RfA however I thought I'd better point out to you that it still says you report vandals/bad usernames to WP:AIV even though now you can block them, just thought I'd give you a heads up so you can change it. Thanks a lot! The Sunshine Man 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up; I knew there would be a few things in there that I'd have to update, so I'll change the content around when I get the chance ;) ~ Anthony 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block concerns

I realize that it's almost a moot point by now as the block is about to expire, but I would like to express concerns about your recent block of User:DCGeist. He is not a vandal, he is a longtime good contributor who has been active in working on Good and Featured articles. I agree that there was some edit-warring at McCarthyism, but most of his edits were obviously good faith copyediting, and I saw only two actual reverts. In my opinion a 3RR block in this situation was excessive. --Elonka 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns; the issue is being discussed via email, although I am aware that the block has since expired. Watch this space ~ Anthony 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AGK/Welcome Template

Hi AGK. I noticed that the heading of your welcome template says "Welcome to the Wikipedia". Wouldn't it be more appropriate to change it to "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Thanks! Tim.bounceback(talk | contribs | ubxen) 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! I'll fix that soon ;-) ~ Anthony 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freak104

Thanks very much for your help. User:Freak104 is claiming, disingenuously, that he wasn't warned before the block. Yet his talk page shows a warning at 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) — and Freak104 still went ahead and made dozens of edits beginning the next day (see his contributions list) at 17:11, 9 May 2007 -- forcing other editors to comb each of those dozens.

Worse, he's now admittedly doing an end-run around the block through his IP address (User:35.10.159.15), saying he's Freak104 right in his user-contributions page. I don't he's malicious, but his refusal to read up on some of the most basic Wikipedia guidelines is creating a lot of unnecessary work for all of us.--Tenebrae 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; the user has contacted me via email, requesting unblocking, and I have declined: although prior notice is preferred, I've deemed it appropiate to block in this case, regardless. Naturally, another Administrator can unblock, and I won't have a problem, but at the moment I don't think the encyclopedia is benefiting from the account's contributions ~ Anthony 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd's Pie Advert

Just wondering why this was closed as no consensus. Sources were sought and none were found, and sourcing is a pretty basic requirement. (And 4-2 recommending deletion, not that I'm a fan of counting noses). Would you object at least to relisting this? Pan Dan 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); upon reviewing my decision there, I think you're actually correct: general consensus was most likely to delete. I'm revising my decision, and closing as delete.
Thanks for the notification - take a barnstar...
The Original Barnstar
For being bold, and challenging my incorrect decision at Articles for Deletion, I, Anthony, award you, Pan Dan, the Original Barnstar!

Kindest regards,
Anthony 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Have a good one!
Regards,
Anthony 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your consideration (and the barnstar :)). Regards, Pan Dan 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD is not a head count. This is why it isn't called Votes for Deletion anymore. Even your "4-2" count is erroneous. Its assumed that the author of the article in the first place wouldn't want it deleted, so arguably, it would be a 4-3 count anyway. How is this consensus?

There was a significant group of people who wanted the chance to improve and source the article (Which was a stub), and taking it away and changing your decision because of a bit of meaningless pressure is weak and against the ethos of Wikipedia. What a joke.

If I can get enough support in the Wikipedia IRC channels, then none of you will have heard the last of this injustice. I cannot let this biting of the newcomer who created the article, the blatant disregard for AFD procedures and the lack of understanding of what a stub is and how and why they should be given a chance to be improved stand. If only Essjay was still here to stop such travesties, as he did in the past! Roger Danger Field 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ~ Anthony 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Away to bed - exams tomorrow; should be on around 08:30 WEST (approx.) ~ Anthony 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcluding your signature

Please fix all occurances of this (per WP:SIG). There's a list at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:AGK/Signature. Daniel Bryant 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; any reason why you came across this - it seems unlikely to be by chance ~ Anthony 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like they are all from AGK/Blocked. I think there are ways to automatically have a sig come up without using a transclusion, one way is using the subst flag. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, you should probably also subst that template of yours, just like the other vandalism warnings such as {{uw-test1}} etc. Cheers! —— Eagle101Need help? 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you want me to have MartinBotIII go through and subst the existing occurences, or would you prefer to do it manually? Martinp23 23:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be great ;-) I do transclude it now, but at the original creation of the page I took the choice not to transclude, in case there was some horrible problem with the template; since it appears it's working fine, I now add "subst:-" to it whilst posting, and I intend to go through all the "un-substed" occurrences and fix them soon ~ Anthony 11:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How I found it? I was editing User talk:ChrisO, and saw that the Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page: header at the bottom of the editing form linked to your signature page. Daniel Bryant 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIW

I disgree with your reasoning not to ban this vandal. The user intentionally replaced a well used wikipedia link with a link to goatse. I dont see how a warning would've deterred him/her from doing otherwise. The intention was clear to forward users to goatse, and prevent wikipedia administrative work. With that said, I'll cede to your decision, but I just wanted to make my objection. Corpx 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we must assume good faith (per WP:AGF) and make the assumption that the user did not know what they were doing was wrong. Placing of the appropiate warnings is our attempt to re-educate the offending account - if such actions do not work, removal of editing privileges should then be used ~ Anthony 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There should be an extent to which good faith can be assumed. I think the wiki policy on personal threats/lawsuits leave no room for good faith. Replacing the link to nominate articles for deletion with goatse.cz seems malicious. Corpx 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I immediately jumped to placing {{Uw-spam4im}} on the page. The next time he/she offends, I will move to block the account; on that note - the term is block, not ban - there is a large difference: please read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for details ~ Anthony 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AGK/Activities#Administrator actions

*shakes fist* Why you! No, of course I don't mind! I was going to write some big philosophical thing, but I realised that it should be just that simple. Hopefully I've got that much right :) I'm glad we're on the same wavelength. Cheers mate, – Rianaऋ 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We're definitely in the same book - after all, Wheel Warring makes Jimbo sad :-( see you around ~ Anthony 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Kelly Martin

This [4] is blatant trolling. Don't. We block trolls around here, we don't make them admins.--Docg 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I made my point: I though the message was rude; if Kelly has a problem with, I'm more than happy to discuss it with her and if necessary remove the message ~ Anthony 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a tip: if you want to make a message that lots of people will see, you don't have to spam it. just put it on the talk page of the page it relates to: in this case if you had put your thank you on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/AGK it would have been seen by anyone who watchlisted the debate--which would be just about anybody who was really interested in knowing the result. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
My original intention was to do that, but instead I opted to post to the !votes that went above and beyond the default "'''Support''' --~~~~", or else the oppose/neutral !votes that I thought were justified (n.b. to self, not yet done this for oppose votes) ~ Anthony 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As you saw, some editors don't welcome such spam. Respect their wishes. I thought your taunting of Kelly in this way was very bad behavior, close to trolling as Doc observed. Please don't do that. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, check your style sheet. For some reason links aren't showing visibly on this page in my skin (Cologneblue). --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll check it out ~ Anthony 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font color

I hate to ask, but I'm having a really difficult time reading your talk page... could you possibly make the font color and the background contrast a bit better. Thanks —— Eagle101Need help? 23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn it :-( and I'd just found a style I like! No problem, I'll change the font to grey (from lightgrey) or something along those lines ~ Anthony 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting your user pages

I'm just curious, is there a specific reason why you decided to protect your user pages immediately upon adminship? Krimpet (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Admins tend to get more abuse than non-admins. Gotta love Occam. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:RfA Thanks

Thanks AGK (Anthony / Anthonycfc [you have a long lineage of usernames btw :-] ]) for the RFA thanks. I'm glad that at least one new admin has made quick use of the newfound tools. How do you think my [hypothetical] RfA would turn out? ~ Magnus animuM  BRAIN FREEZE! 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only been AGK and Anthony_cfc :P although it seems like more! Regarding RfA? I'd leave it for a month or two - make sure you're perfectly "in the clear", so to speak ~ Anthony 11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

My pleasure! Happy editing! Sr13 08:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:P ~ Anthony 11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

You are an admin, I think it is in your best interests and you could be of use of others on IRC. I suggest that you spend some time on IRC (m:IRC channels). If you have Firefox, you could just use the built-in Chatzilla. Cbrown1023 talk 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do use IRC, just not as often as others; I prefer to help out by responding to Wiki requests, rather than on IRC ~ Anthony 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note the secrecy in my voice. :-P You may want to have it idle there (I'm not asking you to sit there all day). You may also find the admin channel interesting....... Cbrown1023 talk 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
;) point taken; I can't actually get into the Admin channel - I need an invite, and the whole process of posting identity confirmation here, etc..., has just driven me away from bothering to go there ~ Anthony 13:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't need ident confirmation, what's your IRC name (or cloak)? I'll get you access there or see if you already have it. Cbrown1023 talk 13:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
My IRC nickname is simply AGK ~ Anthony 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You have access, just type /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins whenever you want to get in... we all have to do it. Cbrown1023 talk 13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done — cheers ~ Anthony 13:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent page protections

Anthony, I'm not convinced by your last couple of page protections. As I see it the issues are:

  1. G8 - I don't think you can possibly characterise this as a content dispute. Sarkosy is not yet the president of France, he is president elect. He doesn't belong in the infobox (there isn't much to discuss). Even if you do see it as an edit dispute its very unusual to edit protect a page but not move protect it.
  2. Jason Leopold - I'm really confused by why you fully protected this page. I'm not convinced its even being vandalised - if it is its being vandalised by IPs - so why on earth fully protect it (with the {{pp-vandalism}} template no less) when only anon editors need to be excluded from editing the page (if anyone does).

I think it might be a good idea if you reviewed these decisions. WjBscribe 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon (GMT time); you might not be aware, but I'm open to all suggestions by other editors (especially more experienced Administrators). This seems like one of those occurences;
  1. G8 — it's been unprotected by Steel (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), but anyway: there was a dispute over the infobox between IPs and One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) - as such, I fully protected the page, until there was a resolution ... I did not wish to give the appearance of "siding" with one party by excluding the other through my protection levels;
  2. Jason Leopold — I was incorrect here, and I concede so; changing to semi-protection.
Hopefully this is satisfactory, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused: we all make errors of judgement sometimes - I'm just lucky that there's a bunch of helpful Administrators there to let me know
Anthony 13:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Please, and I'm sorry to have to ask again, but the first thing User:Freak104 did when his block ended was to issue a personal attack against me on his page. I'd noted to him that Wiki has civility guidelines, and that set him off. I've tried speaking calmly to him, but he's belligerent. Is there anything you can do to get the civility message across to him? Thank you for any help. He shouldn't attack people that way. --Tenebrae 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done — Anthony 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Block

Hi, I just read your answer to my report here ([[5]]). I admit I don't understand your answer "there appears to be no violation of WP:3RR; this is upon examination of the three diffs given". There are 3 reverts in 2 hours. May you please explain me why there is no violation of the rule? Thank you. --Maurice27 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR requires more than three reverts in 24 hours - the "limit", if you will, is three reverts, and four is grounds for a block. Naturally, this fluctuates, and on a few occasions I have blocked for under four, but in this case I'm not blocking; please read WP:3RR before filing another report at Wikipedia:Three revert violations - it's actually a requirement, as stated at the page top ~ Anthony 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for your time. --Maurice27 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem - don't hesitate to drop by whenever you have any more questions ;-) and be sure to read WP:3RR ~ Anthony 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have one more question... How can you get the messages to appear in both talk-pages (yours and mine) at the same time? I just loved it! :) --Maurice27 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That's easy - you just copy and paste over the conversation :P hopefully I've been helpful here? ~ Anthony 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
He he he... I was thinking about a new brand bot which would had been my pleasure using. --Maurice27 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
:D sorry, we still have to do some work for ourselves ;-) ~ Anthony 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Haha Sorry about that it was my first time using WP:AIV is there any order they I have to place them in?thank you,Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of the order - it's a case of what type of vandal it is you are reporting: if it is an Anonymous user (i.e., an IP address, for example 78.233.111), then use {{IPvandal|put the IP here}} brief reason for listing ~~~~, and so on (see my message at your talk page for the full list) ~ Anthony 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh I see thank you for your time Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD

It looks like you closed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 6#Template:notorphan, but didn't remove the TFD notice at the actual template. Pagrashtak 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - thanks for bringing it to my attention; I've removed the notice, so Y Done ~ Anthony 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks Anthony. Chalk up another VC success. --Dweller 13:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

;-) ~ Anthony 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Dweller's RfA Nominator Award
Thank you for joining the party and expressing your kind faith in me. I've already started getting everything wrong, so feel free to point out my horrendous errors. RfA was far less gruesome than I expected, thanks to your lies fullsome praise of me. I am mopped. Vandals look out. Thank you. PS You must have missed it when the other guys met up... shame. Recognise 'em? --Dweller 09:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)}}
Woo hoo ;-) ~ Anthony 09:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking up

Hey, It's Sooner Dave, remember me? Anyway, I was checking to see how everything was going on and I just have a question for you: Is the black text on a black background intentional? You can't read the letters without highlighting the text. School's almost out, and I'll be back to edit. Sooner Dave 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome back ;-) I've been rather inactive from the Adopt-a-User program of late ... I was made an Administrator a few weeks back, so I've had to prioritise :P don't know anything about black backgrounds, but I'll check it out ~ Anthøny 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Webisode I & II (Sanctuary)

Hi, according to the deletion log, you recently deleted Webisode I (Sanctuary) and Webisode II (Sanctuary). I would like you to please reconsider and restore the articles in question because Sanctuary is indeed a notable series. I added further justification the the talk page for Webisode I and cross posted it to my own talk page. If that isn't sufficient, could you please more clearly explain why it was deleted and the kind of evidence I need to provide to have this decision reversed. Thank you. Lachlan Hunt 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); thanks for getting in contact:
Reason for deletion
  • The article is non-notable, per CSD A7;
  • ...in that, there are no sources cited.
Evidence of notability
  • References/citations - see WP:CITE for details.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Template:flphoto

You deleted the template per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 6#Template:Flphoto. I have received a message complaining about an image that I uploaded which did not have a license. I understood in the discussion that the images associated with this licence would be dealt with. Apparently at least this image was not. Please review what happened with images with this license and make corrections if necessary. I have uploaded around 50 images using the former license, and I do not want to receive any more warnings. I am aware of the situation. Thank you. Royalbroil 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); could be back up here a second - you've moved from talking about a TfD to an unlicensed image ... are you requesting my help in an image matter, but saying that you came across me at the TfD, or requesting my reviewing of the TfD and my assistance regarding the image, or have you used the term image instead of template, or what?
Please clarify - I'm anxious to help you out, but I'm a little confused :P I'll post this to your talk page to make sure you see this.
Kindest regards,
Anthøny 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your rapid response. I see why my lack of information confused you. Here is the image in question: Image:C801561.jpg. The deletion of the template caused license problems with this image (and most likely dozens or hundreds of other images). I am be leaving home immediately, so don't expect a rapid reply. I temporarily put your talk page on my watchlist, so let's keep the thread here. Cheers! Royalbroil 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, thanks for watchlisting the talk page—many users (including me) don't use watchlists, so I employ the primitive method of posting nudges at their talk page to notify them of a reply here ... the fact I don't have to do that in this instance is a relief ;-) well, I'm not really sure what exactly I can do: the template was deleted per community consensus, and there's nothing I can do about that (although you can list it at WP:DRV if you wish); with regards to image licensing, if an image lacks a suitable license (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) then it will be deleted, so if you've uploaded it without a license in the first place then I must say I have no sympathy. Another question: how can the deletion of a template affect a license - again, your input is requested; cheers ~ Anthøny 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Webisode I & II (Sanctuary)

Hi, according to the deletion log, you recently deleted Webisode I (Sanctuary) and Webisode II (Sanctuary). I would like you to please reconsider and restore the articles in question because Sanctuary is indeed a notable series. I added further justification the the talk page for Webisode I and cross posted it to my own talk page. If that isn't sufficient, could you please more clearly explain why it was deleted and the kind of evidence I need to provide to have this decision reversed. Thank you. Lachlan Hunt 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); thanks for getting in contact:
Reason for deletion
  • The article is non-notable, per CSD A7;
  • ...in that, there are no sources cited.
Evidence of notability
  • References/citations - see WP:CITE for details.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources
Regarding the lack of sources, the synopsis was written based on the actual episode and I linked to both the transcript and the copy of the episode on YouTube which can serve as references for that. (Note that the YouTube version was provided for promotional purposes, it's not the primary distribution channel.) The cast and crew list came from the credits provided with the purchased episode, they are not freely available online and cannot be linked to directly. However, I did add a link to the episode's IMDB enty, which includes some of the information. The episode is also listed on TV.com. I could have also linked to the official site. Regarding it being "unremarkable" per CSD A7, I disagree for the reasons I outlined in my comment on my talk page because it's created by, and stars, very notable cast and crew.
Evidence of Notability
Per the criteria in Notability (web), unfortunately #3 doesn't apply like it does to other TV series because they have chosen to market direct to the customer (i.e. like selling wholesale, instead of retail), and #2 doesn't apply because I don't know of any award. However, for #1, there are several independent reviews of the series and episode including:
Lachlan Hunt 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No - none of these are reasons for undeletion; please see WP:CSD for the Speedy Deletion criteria ... I think you have the wrong idea about what is and what is not grounds for immediate deletion ~ Anthøny 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Your response seems to be entirely subjective. I tried to address the specific criteria objectively, but you have not explained how or why any of my references do not satisfy the criteria. It would really help if you could explain, in clear and concise English, exactly what I would have to provide to satisfy that criteria? Lachlan Hunt 23:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What can I say - a YouTube video and a transcript on a fan site doesn't qualify as a reliable source; I think you need to visit both this policy page and this guideline page, and have a good read, before creating articles in the future. Finally, a reliable source is identified by these criteria ~ Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you're questioning now. Is it the accuracy of the content or the notability of the show?
Accuracy
My source was reliable. It was written from the actual episode, just like the synopsis for an episode of any other TV series. The YouTube video and Transcript were not the only source. As I said in a previous comment, I could have linked to the official site where you or anyone else is welcome to go buy a copy of the actual episode and verify it for yourself. (No-one said sources have to be free!)
Notability
To show whether the episode is notable enough, I have to show the notability of the series itself, which is what I've tried to do. I'm not sure what else I could say beyond what has already been said. You've clearly made up you're mind already and have no interest in listening, so there's probably a little point continuing this discussion. I will admit, however, that Sanctuary is new, and is technically yet to really prove successful in the industry. If that's what you're real problem is, fair enough. I'll probably come back when Sanctuary is a little more mainstream and its notability a little less questionable. Lachlan Hunt 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) once again, you appear to misunderstand me; I deleted the article because it had insufficient reliable sources, which are required to establish notability (and verifiability) ~ Anthøny 15:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So for Sanctuary to be considered notable, it has to be reviewed in more widely known and respected publication. Would you consider the recently published GateWorld article to be an example of a reliable source? GateWorld is one of the most reliable sources for information related to Stargate. Lachlan Hunt 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not dodging the question here; I think you have to make that call for yourself: how is it possible to be a successful Wikipedian if you are not acquainted with WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:N? Have you ever read them? Anthøny 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You keep pointing out exactly the same set of guidelines, and I read them the first time. BTW, have you read WP:JNN? Effectively, all you have done is say my sources aren't notable, despite my repeated attempts to get you to explain why you believe they are not notable. That's why I asked if you would consider GateWorld to be notable enough.
Anyway, I'm happy to leave it a month or two and come back to get the articles undeleted when the shows popularity and notability have increased. In the mean time, I'll get them published on the official sanctuary fans website instead. Lachlan Hunt 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; thank you for getting in touch ~ Anthøny 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Template:flphoto

You deleted the template per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 6#Template:Flphoto. I have received a message complaining about an image that I uploaded which did not have a license. I understood in the discussion that the images associated with this licence would be dealt with. Apparently at least this image was not. Please review what happened with images with this license and make corrections if necessary. I have uploaded around 50 images using the former license, and I do not want to receive any more warnings. I am aware of the situation. Thank you. Royalbroil 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); could be back up here a second - you've moved from talking about a TfD to an unlicensed image ... are you requesting my help in an image matter, but saying that you came across me at the TfD, or requesting my reviewing of the TfD and my assistance regarding the image, or have you used the term image instead of template, or what?
Please clarify - I'm anxious to help you out, but I'm a little confused :P I'll post this to your talk page to make sure you see this.
Kindest regards,
Anthøny 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your rapid response. I see why my lack of information confused you. Here is the image in question: Image:C801561.jpg. The deletion of the template caused license problems with this image (and most likely dozens or hundreds of other images). I am be leaving home immediately, so don't expect a rapid reply. I temporarily put your talk page on my watchlist, so let's keep the thread here. Cheers! Royalbroil 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, thanks for watchlisting the talk page—many users (including me) don't use watchlists, so I employ the primitive method of posting nudges at their talk page to notify them of a reply here ... the fact I don't have to do that in this instance is a relief ;-) well, I'm not really sure what exactly I can do: the template was deleted per community consensus, and there's nothing I can do about that (although you can list it at WP:DRV if you wish); with regards to image licensing, if an image lacks a suitable license (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) then it will be deleted, so if you've uploaded it without a license in the first place then I must say I have no sympathy. Another question: how can the deletion of a template affect a license - again, your input is requested; cheers ~ Anthøny 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
My question is not about reasoning behind the deletion,, as I in fact !voted for its deletion. My problem is with the consequences of the deletion. To quote the discussion: "If the result of this discussion is delete, we will only delete the tag after the images have been dealt with; that's how TFD works. Pagrashtak" There are approximately 250 images that used the template as justification for their licensing. See here. Most of these images now have no license information. Every one of these images need to be reviewed to see if they should be deleted. Many of the images were taken before 1923, and would be PD in the U.S. I tagged some of the images with dual license (flphoto and a PD in U.S. tag) before the flphoto license was deleted. About a year ago the Florida Photographic Collection was actually ENCOURAGED as a source for free images. Obviously that has changed. I want to avoid getting 50 image deletion warnings on my talk page (since I uploaded around 50 of these images). By the way, I just added your talk page to my watchlist in my last post. Thank you. Royalbroil 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for accidentally restoring this thread in your header. I did not have bad intentions. Royalbroil 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the accidental adding to the wrong page—that's no problem - I used to had a message hidden in <!-- arrows --> but I removed it, so I suppose it was partly due to my neglect ... anyway, no harm done whatsoever. Now, the template has been recreated so I'm willing to leave it recreated until the review of each image has been done, etc...; go ahead, and drop me a note when it's done and I'll redelete the page.
Kind regards,
Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Has someone been assigned to review the images? What criteria (besides determining if the image was taken before 1923 and thus in public domain) should be used to decide if the images should be kept? Might the images be considered to be under fair use? I am far from an image expert, but I know someone in Wikipedia who is an expert who most likely would be willing to take on this task. Cheers! Royalbroil 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)