User talk:Peter/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page.

Full archive index

Contents

[edit] Re: Admin coaching

Hi Bhadani, a while ago you signed up to to Esperanza admin coaching program. As it was a little way back (and slightly unusually, you are already an admin but want to be coached rather than be the coach), I just wanted to check you still wanted to be assigned some coaches? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 21:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I was doing some assigning of coaches last night, but left yours as I hadn't yet got a reply to the above. Maybe an option would be for you to just ask one of the coaches for advice on a specific situation if you need it. In particular I didn't assign User:Kim Bruning yet, as Kim is one of the most experienced admins listed on that page, and therefore might be the best person to help someone who is already an admin. Please let me know what you think, so I can update the coaching list accordingly (I'm trying to get it moving again). Petros471 09:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your message of 11th June 2006. I regret that I could not reply in time - today being a saturday, I am trying to clear the backlog. I believe that life is a learning process, and so although I may be a sysop, there may be still be a lot to learn and share our experiences with persons more experienced than us. I shall keep your advice in mind, and in case I require any assistance I shall contact you/ User:Kim Bruning. Right now, perhaps I do not reqire any formal coaching as such. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine. You are totally correct that just because we've become admins it doesn't mean there isn't still more to learn. However, it is probably best that you just contact one of us for advice in specific situations as you said. Cheers, Petros471 10:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking sock puppets of Universe Daily

(From my archive) These IP address sock puppets are indeed still a problem, as recently as this morning - still reverting back to the same linkspam, for now the ninth time in a row. No one else has dealt with it yet. He has also created at least one new username since these sock puppets were posted on RfI, which has also since been indefinitely blocked. Thanks, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 15:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now dealt with the RFI report. Any others while I'm at it? Petros471 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Petros471, thanks for your note, and thanks for blocking this IP address.

I would say that 48 hours will not be enough, however.

This IP address has been vandalizing and linkspamming consistently for a month and a half at least, has already been given four "final" block warnings, and has been well established as a sock puppet of a user who has already been "indefinitely" blocked at least four times (see Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Universe_Daily and Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users) including for obscenities and flagrantly deceptive vandalism directed at other editors who undo his vandalism. This user has established a consistent pattern of circumventing blocks and repeating the same linkspam in the same article literally 13 times [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], in one example, over a period of almost a month. (The URL is different for one out of those 13 times, but redirects to the same site.) With this record, I hope you will consider a longer ban. I think that would only be fair to the rest of use whose efforts to contribute positively to Wikipedia have been eroded long-term by the time and frustration we devote to reverting the same vandalisms over and over and over again. Thanks, - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 11:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well 203.10.59.63 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is a shared IP, although it does appear to only be used by that one user recently. I'll leave it at 48 hours for now (which is double the standard 24 for first block on static IPs, and much more than the usual 3 hours for shared). However, I'd be happy to block again, for longer, if the user continues when the block expires. Feel free to alert me on my talk page (if I appear to be around) or report to WP:AIV (for quickest admin response) if that is needed. Hope that's ok, and do realise your efforts are greatly appreciated. Remember good contributors work stays around a lot longer than the vandals :) Petros471 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again, Petros. I recognize the danger in banning an IP address that we don't know might belong to a shared resource computer, so your wait-and-see before a longer ban seems appropriate for now. I was thinking of posting a note similar to my message to you on Wikipedia:Long term abuse to alert others to be on the lookout as well. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again - I just noticed that this IP address had been blocked 15 times previous to your recent block, many of them noted for cause of vandalism, which should be kept in mind when evaluating future action. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 11:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh but those blocks were a long time ago, and it is usual for shared IPs to be blocked repeatedly. As I said, I'll extend it if need when it expires. Petros471 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Petros. I'm one of the other editors keeping an eye on this guy, and I appreciate you blocking him. When I see him active again, what's the best place and method for me to bring it to an administrator's attention? Thanks, --William Pietri 14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The best place would either be my talk page, if you see I'm active (check my contribs), or WP:AIV. AIV is watched by a lot of admins, so you should get a fast response there, just the report brief with the main details. Petros471 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 71.210.145.73 report on WP:RFI

I think I might just leave that one for a few hours to let you do the honours :) Besides I'd just managed to clear that page, surely you can help keep it that way ;-) Petros471 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about messing up the clean page :-) I'd actually prefer it is another admin blocked this user. The dispute is in part over content, although the real issue is the IP's absolute refusal to discuss the changes. If he we're willing to engage in conversation I believe we could find a way to implement at least some of the changes in a non-disruptive way. I want to recuse myself from direct admin action in this matter as I am too involved in reverting this guy to fairly use admin powers against him. Thanks, Gwernol 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh very well, if you insist on doing things properly! I'll take a look... Petros471 13:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. In return I'll undertake some WP:RfI mopping duties when I get the opportunity. Gwernol 13:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) So far I think I've supported 3 RFA's where people have promised to help out with RFI and so far none of them have shown up. Maybe I need to chase them :) Petros471 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to do better. By the way, did you receive my reply to your email? I've been having some problems with outgoing email since I moved to the east coast and wanted to make sure you got it. Thanks, Gwernol 14:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow my talk page has got busy in the last few hours! Yeh, I got your email, I think I even wrote a reply, but didn't send it as I was slighly too much of a rant. I'll go and check it out now and still see if it's worth you having. Petros471 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Cheers for the fast response! michael talk 13:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of dholbajja

Why are you so much interested in derogatory, defamatory, false and unimportant articles like dholbajja? Misusing your powers as an admin is easy but understanding casteism in India is not. This user called "Holywarrior' is notorious for vandalising and defaming all upper castes of India. Why do you not ban this user who is a Chandal (untouchable undertaker caste) and also a vandal. He is being abused by almost everyones sane. Please ban him for ever as I find him a mentally deranged and uneducated vandal and delete articles dholbajja and domkatar as they are nonexistent. To compare, it's like somone creating an article called realchrist and then explaining it as a group of christians who practice incest. Please understand that deleting such unnecessary articles will make Wikipedia better and less people would get offended and misled. Hardinge 13:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Hardinge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I'm not interested in "derogatory, defamatory, false and unimportant" and as far as I can see I haven't done any admin action on that article, so I'm not quite sure where I've been "Misusing your powers as an admin". If you think that article should be deleted it needs to be listed on articles for deletion. If you want me to block a user you're going to have to say who. The reason you've given is a personal attack, which could get you blocked. Petros471 13:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Neither am I interested in this website now, that has people like you as arrogant admins. The user in concern is User:Holywarrior. If you don't have feelings or knowledge of history then better resign. And yes, I was expecting that blocking ban from you. You may do what deems fit to you. I did not do anything against Wikipedia's rules. Try to find out if there is really something called 'dholbajja'. No page links to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardinge (talk • contribs)
  • Note for the record: I haven't actually blocked this user yet. Petros471 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is what happened to him [14].Of all the pages I am being accused of floating,I have created only Bhurabal,about Dholbajja I learnt it exists when I created hyperlinks for Bhumihar Clans which were not listed by me.Domkatar articles citation,I had added and page may be back with more proofs,user:Mongo failed to convince me about its delition.Holywarrior 08:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad we agreed :)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Violent_crime_and_suicide_at_Ivy_League_universities

Who's closure should stay- I got there first on the AFD page, you got there first on the delete button? Free to remove either of our closures as you feel is more appropriate, but shouldn't have both there... Petros471 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, scratch that, I was slower on both counts... Petros471 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
hahaha... that's good to know. Doesn't matter whose closure we leave in, it was definitely a tough one to close. :-) When I saw the "New messages", I was afraid it was someone disputing my vote closure. Boy, it didn't take long for someone to dispute it! :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
:D Well if anyone does dispute it, at least we can share the blame! Petros471 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
hahaha... no problem. Hey, how about you do June 8, and if I have time after doing June 7, I'll move on to June 9? I'll let you know when I'm done with any of these days, and you do the same. That way we can prevent overlap. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Btw, is there any easier way of finding the ones that aren't closed, other than scrolling slowly? Petros471 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, and you're not the first one to ask, believe me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry, I replied, as above, in my talk page, not yours)
It seems like {{oldafdfull}} needs streamlining as well... Anyway you're quicker than me! Petros471 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I'm done with June 7, but have no time to move on. Good luck with June 8, if you have time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
hahaha... well, it took a lot longer than I thought, and I'd imagine yours isn't any easier. Looks like I'm busy for the rest of today, so I won't be able to put too much of a dent on this backlog. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Merge doesn't require AFD."

What's the best way to handle this...copy the content of Steve Henifin to the Silicon Knights page, and then make the S.H. page a redirect? Thx, --Kickstart70-T-C 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, basically, though it's a good idea to make sure the text flows consistently and the proper wiki markup is used (unlikely with a straight copy and paste and no further editing). The above statement just meant that I didn't need to do the work :) See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for the how-to. Let me know if you have any other questions. Petros471 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of advice please

Hi Petros!
I've come to take you up on the offer of admin advice! Recently sockpuppets have become rife on FPC. Discussion on the talk page shows that there needs to be some blocking (see [15] talk page section). I was wondering on the correct procedure on such obvious vandalism? Do I give the standard warnings, and how many of them? These users are becoming a real nuisance and it would be good it that matter could be dealt with speedily. --Fir0002 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'd just written a reply to this, and before I hit save, my computer decided to freeze. So much for 'stable WinXP'... So forgive me if this reply is a bit shorter and less detailed:
First off the official policy on sockpuppets is WP:SOCK, which contains lots of useful info like how to tag them etc. Also check out the bit on meatpuppets. Generally speaking when I'm dealing with the messy business of socks I identify the 'puppet master', the main (oldest, most edits) account. Then all other accounts that have strong evidence that they are used by the same person (or people who are editing in a way that makes then indistinguishable from the same person) should be indef blocked. They don't need to be warned if the evidence is strong enough. If the contrib evidence isn't strong enough (glancing at the ones listed on that link you gave me suggests some are pretty obvious, others might need a closer look) then you can request a checkuser (WP:RFCU). The main account isn't usually blocked, but warned that using sockpuppets for vote stacking is against policy. If they continue then it can be blocked for a short period (at first, then longer if continues). Kmf164 is also an admin by the looks of it, so you should be able to work together on this (I generally stay out of sock situations I'm not familiar with, because it does need a knowledge of the contribs). Good luck, let me know if you have any other questions/need more help on this. Petros471 13:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Problem

I tired redirecting Megaman Battle Network 5: Double Team to MegaMan Battle Network 5, but it's not working. I tried it a second time and still nothing happened. Do you know what the problem might be? --Covenant Elite 04:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. You made an edit at 0339 today, that set up the redirect, which is the only edit you've made to Megaman Battle Network 5: Double Team. Maybe you had a problem with your browser cache? Try a 'hard refresh' (ctrl+F5 in Firefox, just F5 in Opera, you'll have to check for any other browser (they are the only two I use). There might also be a setting somewhere in your browser options that says something along the lines of 'check for updated page' and the default is set to automatically or 'x hours', when it should be set to 'always'. Anyway, even if you can't see it, the redirect is working fine for me, so should be ok for everyone else as well! Cheers, Petros471 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilles corner

I noticed you blocked that user for spamming. Whilst it was obviously spam, that user had not received any warnings until I gave mine, and it wasn't spam of the 'evil type' (like misleading links to porn sites or something). So I think you were a bit too harsh to block then. I think it would have been better to wait to see if that user continued after my warning. If so then give a {{spam2}} then a spam3 or spam4 warning, before moving on to a block (spam5). I see you're a new admin, so don't worry about it too much, just remember that talking to other editors can often has a more positive effect than blocking them. Let me know if you have any questions, Petros471 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Doh, novice mistake. I figured to stop the blatant linkspamming at its source, though, in hindsight, 31 hours was a bit harsh. Should I unblock, and reduce the sentence? Ah, I feel so stupid. Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, maybe reduce it to 3 hours, with the same block reason. When and how long to block for is very much an experience thing, so as I said don't worry about it too much. If the spam is not malicious (like porn, obvious adfarm sites etc) then it is always best to warn first. In this case it looked like someone trying to promote their own fansite. If it is malicious then an immediate block can sometimes be appropriate. Petros471 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and you don't need to unblock when shortening a block length. The shortest block always is the one that is applied, irrespective of the order of the blocks. For this reason if you ever need to extend a block you need to unblock first then reblock for longer. Petros471 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Could you have a look at my contributions etc to give me hints regarding RfA? (I know I am awful at using the edit summaries - something I am trying to change and the preview (leading to multiple insignificant edits) - again something I am trying to change). I am not planning to nominate myself just yet, I would just appreciate some pointers for the future. skorpion 14:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a heap. I sign myself a different name to my username because ny old username (recently changed) was my real name. I will sometime soon stop signing with skorpion. skorpion 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mets501/Warnings

Yes, I'm sorry about that. Right now (using VandalProof), I'm substituting that page into User Talk pages which I put warnings on. However, due to a screweup using #ifeq, for about 5 User Talk pages, it did not substitute, and therefore takes you to User:Mets501/Warnings. If you see it again, feel free to remove the header (which should look extremely long due to the #ifeq screwup). (I will remove the warning from User:Mets501/Warnings though, so that that warning does not go onto other user talk pages when I substitute :-). —Mets501 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the hints

Hi, thanks for the speedy deletion hints: very useful. I agree about clearing the edit summary and will try to do that consistently as appropriate. By the way, I'm very happy to have you looking over my shoulder as I learn the tools. Feel free to leave me further hints and point out if you think I've made a mistake. I'm looking to learn.

I'm on a business trip back to California for the next two weeks, so may only be able to edit intermittently. I got your off-wiki reply, by the way. Many thanks. Gwernol 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Comments (Doright)

I appreciate the advice! If it weren't that Doright has been doing this kind of the since the very beginning of his editing last December, I might be inclined to let it go. But this is his way of trying to win his edits over others. If you have a moment, take a look at his contributions. I tried not engaging him at all, but that just encouraged him to continue. I would appreciate it if a neutral admin would call him out on this behavior, but none seem interested in it. So I decided to offer to engage him again, if he would stop personal attacks. So he continued. He even suggested that a teen editor should show his parents my communications with him because a clergyman sending files to a teen.... Musical Linguist called him on it, and he attacked her.

My reason for going the way I did was looking for someone besides me to tell him to knock it off. (notice I didn't call for a block)

Yes, I would never take administrative action on any page I'm involved in, probably not even and Sprotect. I have a lot of practice with recusal in real life. I also would never take action on any user I've been engaged in, friend or challenger, including Doright. I would hope to help others out with difficult situations. I also watch a number of pages for vandalism and would be most likely to do Sprotects on these. If you want to see a recent intervention of mine, take a look at Jews for Jesus and the messages I sent to the new user Moshe Rosen and my friend Humus Sapiens on a very sensitive issue. --CTSWyneken 10:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the comment you got in response to the report on WP:PAIN "It appears that Doright may have been uncivil a number of times, but looking at the diffs you provided on his talk page, I certainly don't see blatant personal attacks. Perhaps a user conduct RfC would be more appropriate if the long history on his talk page is accurate. Shell babelfish 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)" is pretty accurate. I.e. the attacks my Doright are not the most blatant I've seen, but a WP:RFC might be a good idea to try and get this issue resolved. Note that for a RFC you have to both show the dispute and attempts have having tried and failed to solve it. Petros471 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling

Regarding this edit. You (accidentally I'm sure) deleted a large part of the article when trying to edit the image. I've reverted for now, so if want to doing the image edit again feel free, but be careful not to remove any valid content (use show preview and/or show changes button before saving to check). Cheers, Petros471 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Arghhh crap I'm sorry it keeps doing that to me on the Evanescence article, I think its to do with FireFox. I always show previews but generally to see if what i did worked, not to see if I deleted the article, again my apologies.--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's ok. I heard something about a bug with Firefox and the Google (think it was google) toolbar being installed caused a bug that has that effect. I sometimes edit using Firefox (usually Opera), but don't have any extra toolbars so never come across that problem personally. Petros471 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Its funny you should say that because I actually have the Google tool bar- well had!!!--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set Abominae

Done (Iced Earth), thanks! NawlinWiki 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older archives

(Note this is in responce to a lengthy IRC converstion covering several points, this being one of them). Petros471 12:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand what happened now. I never deleted comments from my talk page. But I did clear it off once, I believe I was testing some piece of Tawkerbot2 functionality at the time. I've used my pages from time to time to test out something small.

Regardless, I think this represents a full archive of my talk: [16] joshbuddytalk 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Counters

I'm not sure I see the benefit of restarting the AFD counter on a relisted article. After the first 2 days I find exposure to be low, most people don't seem to go back 3 days or more to check old AFDs to see if they require comments, and what about controversial AFDs like this one [17] I relisted it to ensure a proper concensus as I felt, and a couple others pointed out that it would be easy for a few fans to muddle it into no concensus, so keeping exposure up was the key to ensuring a proper general concensus and feedback on this article. Though that doesn't serve much purpose if the AFD becomes extended from the relisting and the exposure to the general public drops but people with an interest would have additional time to attempt to drive a no concensus on the article. Perhaps I'd be a bit less leary of that if I didn't see so many AFDs closed on what appears to be a vote and not on the arguments for each side. Maybe I'm missing something from the process here. --Crossmr 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, sorry for the delay in replying.
Looking at the example you provided I think you have a different understanding of what relisting is compared with what I've always assumed it to be (I'm not an AFD expert, so I don't claim to be an authority of the subject). Normally relisting is only done at the end of the 5 day period, and then the AFD subpage is moved back to the current day's log page. Am I right in thinking you are moving the subpage of an article back to the current days deletion log before the end of the 5 day period? As the page admins use when looking for AFDs ready to close is based on what days log page the article is listed on, not when the nomination was created, relisting by almost by definition resets the 5 day counter. The exception to this is if an admin has re-listed and is watching the discussion, and decides that consensus has now been reached and closes it before the extra 5 days is over (or another admin coming across it thinking the same thing). Petros471 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship (User:Where)

Hello Petros471 :)

I saw how well things were going along with Xyrael and saw the comment on your userpage, and I was wondering if you had the time and were willing to consider whether I am ready for adminship. If not, of course, that's fine too :)

Cheers, -- Where 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye I'm willing to consider alright. If I'm too busy you'll just have to wait a little bit, but I tend to do that sort of thing when I want a break from 'the front line', so the wait varies quite a bit depending what mood I'm in. Petros471 12:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay; thanks :)! -- Where 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I removed myself from your RFA reviews page since xyr has apparently decided to nom me. Perhaps this is for the best since you seemed to be getting a little stressed with the flood of RFA review requests (I hope you feel better, BTW). Once again, thank you very much for your consideration! -- Where 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
gr = grammar != stress :) I was just trying to set a 3RR style 'electric fence' there so I don't end up with a page like the admin coachin waiting list. Yeh, xyr said on IRC that he was going to. That's fine, and it does mean I can try and do something else. Cheers, Petros471 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah; I thought gr was a growl. Very well then :) -- Where 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll have to remember that in case I use it on articles :) Petros471 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello Petros471, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Hammer (porn actor)

You closed that as a no consensus - I think if you look again, you'll see that was a keep.

The nominator wrote "Not sure if this guy fits the notability criteria for pornstars on WP... Any porn buffs wanna help out?" - that was his entire comment. Four other editors commented. The first, the only one "voting" Delete, said "I'm not a porn buff", specifically in response to that question. The other three all voted Keep and cited WP:PORN BIO, which is the proposed "notability criteria for pornstars on WP". There is no other. (Joe Beaudoin, who didn't explicitly cite WP:PORN BIO, only cited my argument which cited it, in fact originated WP:PORN BIO. You can also take a look at his signature. :-) ) That's pretty clearly responding positively to the nominator's request. We may or may not be porn buffs in general, but we know a thing or two about porn on WP.

Therefore, I believe the nominator's "vote" should essentially be interpreted as a keep, since he seemed to be deferring to the opinions of more knowledgeable editors, and all he got were "keep"s. Even if you don't buy that argument, clearly the nom never argued for deletion.

That makes either 75% or 80% for Keep. If you don't like the numerical tally, and prefer to look at the arguments, the only argument for deletion was "Fails WP:BIO, does not assert notability" - and I asserted notability by adding film count to the article.

Whew. All that arguing for an almost academic distinction between keep by consensus or keep by no consensus. :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I interpreted the nom's opinion slightly differently than you did. I can see the result both ways, and I did consider just putting it as keep, and could easily have done. However, does it really matter? Result was the same in the end- article was kept. Petros471 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mines45

Given that Mines45 once again restored his or her edits and deleted all posts from his or her discussion page, I have started a RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mines45. Thank you. McPhail 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You just need to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", I'll do so after you do (as you are the primary user to bring the RFC your sig should go first). Petros471 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. McPhail 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Let's see if anyone comments now (especially Mines45!). Petros471 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work...

You too... it's nice to see the Old page empty for once. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

So he is allowed to file one on me but I cant file an RfI on him? I think I have a legit claim to trolling and personal attacks but then again I have been inactive for over a year so my thoughts dont count on wikipeida. I think my RfI or whatever they are called aginst Farm is legit and if it isnt why did I go through all the trouble of posting it on the RfI page? It seems whenever something is edited that isnt to the liking of someone its called vandalism makes no sense. Take the Gotem article Farm wanted it VfD that failed now he wants an RfM on it when is it going to stop?

Also a simple IP check or just looking at when and what I edited, or all the typos I am to lazy to fix, shows quite clearly that I am not a sockpuppet. By accusing me of being a sockpuppet you are making a personal attack as it is unfounded (Go ahead check the IP's see for yourself).

How can you say there is lack of evdeince for Fram's trolling. Every artilce we make he is there (often times the only one, just go look at the gotem VdF page) bitching and moaning about it, asking why we even care about it as we have never seen the place. If you want me to show you all the links I will, and if you still claim it isnt trolling I dont know what wikipeida is about as on any other form what fram is doing would be called trolling.

And he is right block me and if I feel the need to edit again I will just change my IP what are you going to do block the entire IP range for my ISP in Gainesville that I dobut. 578 22:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to file an RFI, but I removed it as I didn't see any specific evidence for the claims you made. There was clear evidence in the RFI against you. Besides, I routinely investigate the reporter as well as person reported in cases like this so there wasn't really any need to keep two reports around. I didn't say you were using sockpuppets, I was warning you not to as you have threatened to, and that still applies. Petros471 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Fram was the only one opposed to the Gotem article is factually incorrect. I also intervened there once I discovered why all these funny articles were being added about non-existing places in my neighbourhood. I personally think Fram should not have dropped the RfD (and even started to correct some things in Gotem - so to claim he still wants the article deleted is uncivil) as it would only encourage people over the East Flanders articles. Note that 578 has conceded that he helped write the original version of the Kottem article:[18] The hoax articles about Eiland, Polfbroekstraat and Kottem were created to support the notoriety of Gotem, and so it is perfectly understandable that the RfM is called that way. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Statement

Thank you very much for fixing the typos in my statement! I was mediating Portal talk:Taiwan at the same time, and it was become very heated and angry in there. I guess I shouldn't have tried to do both at once huh ;) Anyway, thank you very much indeed.

Yours, The Halo (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA criteria

I noticed your !vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joshbuddy, and took a look at your criteria from that. I saw you have 4500 edits total. I think that is rather on the high side. In an extreme example it is possible for someone to have written hundreds of articles, several of them featured, posted many thoughtful and helpful comments on various talk pages showing a deep understanding of how Wikipedia works, being civil, having the right attitude etc, and still have less than 4500 edits. Of course it is also possible that someone has done many 'quick and minor' edits to reach that total, without showing an understanding of policy etc. I guess I'm just trying to ask you to assess a candidate based on their actual experience rather than simple a number.

Also there are quite a lot of re-directs surrounding that page (especially from the talk page), it would probably be worth fixing them (the double ones at least). Petros471 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions may apply is written on top of that page. That user fails my Less than 350 edits to Wikipedia Namespace requirement. I have to oppose that users' RFA. Sorry about that. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't really commenting on your decision in that case, more of a general point. I guess the same goes (to lesser extent) for your other numbers, please do look at the quality as well as the quantity (and if you do that you might find yourself making a fair number of exceptions). This is only a suggestion though, I respect editors have very different RFA criteria from each other, and that's fine (well as long as it's not based on something totally stupid like sex, race or something like that). Petros471 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I do look at the quality of edits. That user seems to neither fail nor pass my RFA criteria. He has used Edit Summaries and during his early days in wikipedia and he has been here for a while. This user has also been blocked thrice by Curps. I've also seen this user editting around when I'm online. He's a good editor but 150 edits to WP namespace doesn't really look good to me. Sorry about that. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok great, as I said I was trying to make more of a general point than trying to get you to change your !vote for Josh (I could have said I saw you post on Cyde's talk page, and my comments would have been the same :) As you mention it though, I should point out that all the blocks by Curps were made by Curps' bot making a mistake and/or testing (after all he was unblocked straight away after them, and if you look through his talk page history you can't see any vandalism warnings, and the moves that triggered one were tests), so you really shouldn't hold that particular point against him. Petros471 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against this user. He's a great user for I always see him editting around. I'm thinking about changing my vote. I haven't decided yet. I'm also thinking about being "less strict" when it comes to these RFAs. (I only introduced this Criteria today). In the past, I nearly always support all RFAs as long as the user meets people's general RFA criteria. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your advise

I never aware such option existed in my preferences, just changed it now. I think it will definitely help me to write in editing summary every time. --WinHunter (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rfa (Astanhope)

I am interested in becoming an admin. What do you think of my prospects? Thanks in advance for your feedback! --AStanhope 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You want the short 'I'll have a quick look, which is likely to miss things' version which I can probably do within a day or two, or the full RFA review version, which has a waiting list? Petros471 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My expectation is a short review that doesn't take much of your time. I hardly know you! What I'm really interested in is your reaction to my edit count numbers. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! --AStanhope 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well the main thing that hits me looking through your contributions is not the relatively low number of edits (I have far lower standards on that count than AA below), but rather the lack of edits in the 'admin things'. Before submitting an WP:RFA you need to show that you have more experience in the sort of areas admins work in. That includes links like articles for deletion, recent changes patrol, and lots of other maintenance type things. These are generally pages that start with Wikipedia: (the Wikipedia namespace). People also look for talk (both article and user) page interaction, knowledge of policy as well as many other things. You can take a look at my personal RfA criteria for a guide, as well as other people's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards (please note that a lot of people seem to type lower edit counts on that page then they actually keep to, i.e generally 2000+ is more realistic than some the lower numbers on that page). Personally I dislike high edit count requirements, especially as people in work tend to have less free time for things like Wikipedia. However, you still need to show a wide experience of different areas of the site and admin type things. Hope that helps, feel free to ask me any other questions. Petros471 21:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, much! I'd better get back to work! --AStanhope 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petros471 Abuses Adminstrative Priveleges

This administrator has protected the Prayer page and has locked in an unbelivable bias.

Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made while preventing vandalism of the page. There are some situations in which it should not be applied. It is:

   * not to be used to deal with regular content disputes. See the protection policy for how to deal with this;
   * not intended for pre-emptive protection with the exception of some biographies of living people
   * not for the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected;
   * not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general.

Article-talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User-talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.

Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.99.43 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the reminder of the semi-protection policy. I am familiar with it, and am confident that I have applied it correctly in this situation. Continually adding the same links against consensus is not a good idea, and in this situation is distinctly looks like spam. It would be far better for you to suggest the reason why the links should be added on the article's talk page, and obtain consensus there for their inclusion. If there is no consensus to include them, they should be left out of the article. Continuing to add them can be seen as vandalism, hence the semi-protection. Petros471 20:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage judging

Ready to do this thing? --Cyde↔Weys 16:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up for the last judge spot, we need two more nominations (there needs to be 15) to start properly. When all fifteen nominations are in place, you choose the best out nomination 13, 14 and 15 as your finalist. Further details will follow in an official spam. Petros471 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
We now have 15 pages, so you can go ahead and take your pick of the last 3 for slot 5. Petros471 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

As you removed your message I guess you probably noticed you are still on the list :) Sorry about the wait, but there isn't much that can be done about that unless more admins sign up as coaches. Petros471 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While you are waiting you might find this guide useful. Petros471 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hehe yeah, I got confused because so many people have given up I'm way higher than I was. Sorry bout that! Philc TECI 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RfA

Are you able to get the "[[User:{{{User}}}|{{{User}}}]]" heading to link to the RFA page rather than the user's userpage? No-one's opposed that suggestion before, and it has been raised more than once (not just by me!) but I don't want to go messing around with a high profile template when I'm not 100% on the coding ;) Petros471 21:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it worked fine. See Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TestRfA 2. --Rory096 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So why not just leave it in the 'real' template? Petros471 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Tango's tool might need to be changed, so I'll ask him first. --Rory096 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Petros471 21:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting Joshbuddy's RFA

I've decided to Support. Anonymous__Anonymous 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review Agathoclea (talk · contribs)

AA comment on Joshbuddy's lead me to your RfA qualification criteria. Although I am not planning on becoming an admin I would be interrested in an assessment from yourself especially about my involvement with 67.185.57.48 (talk · contribs). Thank you for your time. Agathoclea 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your involvement in that seems fine. I'm not sure there's much more to say about that, as you seemed to have taken a fairly minor role in that. The accusations from the IP that you were 'stalking' are clearly unfounded. It's quite usual as an admin (and doing that sort of thing as a non-admin) to get that sort of comment. A quick scan of my talk page should show that (I am less likely to remove posts entitled "Petros471 Abuses Adminstrative Priveleges" from my talk page than other people!), and I like to think of myself as one of the less controversial admins around :)
Try and use edit summaries for all edits, including ones on talk page. They are handy for finding specific posts in the page history etc. There is an option in preferences to make Wikipedia prompt you for one if you don't enter them if you simply find yourself forgetting.
You say you're not planning on becoming an admin, is that just now (fine, as you probably need more experience) or ever (which would be a shame as you look on course for that!)? Petros471 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I had thaught about adminship when I first set out becoming really interrested in wikipedia and would be honoured if people think I am up to the mark. I have spend a bit of time RC patroling and seem to wander off on links and connections trying to find out why things are the way they are. Just resently I had less time available, also the above incident caused a little stress. Which most likely means I need to get a thicker skin first. Thank for you comments. Agathoclea 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

hey im kind of new to wikipedia... i find it reallly cool. it was born in the same place i was :) (st pete, fl) anyway... how do i add those cool looking templates into my user page (like you have the one with the smiley face and it says like this user likes to help new users) ive seen a lot of these on people's user pages and they are neat. how do i get some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMW814 (talk • contribs) .

Replied on User talk:JMW814. Petros471 14:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to file an RFI

How do I "correctly" file an RFI then. As its pretty obvious that Farm is trolling around. First he tried to speedy delete Gotem after it had been around for a year, then when that didnt work he tried to do an AfD then when that didnt work now he is doing a RfM, I am postive that if RfM dosent work out to his likeing he will do a RfA. Where does it stop, he is the only person leading this crusade against us. Does it mater that we are from the US, no. If an article is allowed to be on wikipeida it shouldnt matter who writes it, however he seems to think otherwise. I cant recall what the first project was (the one that spawned wikipedia) but there it did matter who wrote it. As long as the article is factualy sound and allowed I think it should be allowed. Farm on the other hand goes from one article we make to another and he is almost always the only one sitting there throwing a fit and then he will get other people to join in. Now if wikipeida doesnt see that as trolling (which is when someone just goes from place to place stirring up trouble where it isnt needed [See GOTEM where it had surived a Speedy Delete over a YEAR ago and then he tries to do it again) I dont know what is. If you want I can go through and look at all the times he has trolled however I am not going to do that untill I know EXACLTY how to wade through the layers upon layers upon layers of red tape that is wikipeida. Its funny how wikipeida has tried to limit the red tape and by doing so has made a whole lot of it. So how do I file a correct RFI and what all do I need.

And he was spaming my talk page (like I said to the other guy who left a note on my talk page about the whole Computer thing, I clicked the wrong link shoot me, look through my edits and you will see I have been doing some vandal reverting) So that wasnt done on purpose, then he claims my additions to the talk page about gotem were "vandalism" becuase he didnt like what I had to say. Then he comes and spams up my talk page, so I gave him a warning.

EDIT: how could I use sockpuppets if you banned my username "578" from making any edits? I cant bypass that ban. 578 16:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What helps me is a few (not every one, just some examples) diffs that show examples of the acusations made. So you don't need to dig out every single thing, just one or two where I can clearly see "there's a problem here". Also please use {{user}} and {{article}} (or at least use standard [[ ]] style links) as they provide some handy links to make my life easier.
I've no intention of telling you of how to avoid a block, and if you do anything that requires a block you don't need to worry about it. If you do avoid a block (I am not saying you are, this is just a general point that applies to anyone) you will find your block extended. Petros471 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings: Esperanza

Nice to see another Opera user on Wikipedia!

I actually came here to volunteer myself for any Esperanza-based multiple postings that need doing: I prefer the interaction to solitary editing sometimes!

If there's anything I can do, feel free to email me (when it's fixed) or use my talk page.

EvocativeIntrigue TALK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Kind regards,

EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice please re:controversial afd closure

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadrunner records message boards as delete, and not too surprisingly this has caused a fuss with the board members on Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board whom obviously don't like the result (I clearly, and in my opinion rightly, gave less weight to their arguments, especially as they were not quoting any relevant policy). First off do you think this was the correct closure (you have far more experience in AFD than I do), second what do you think the best thing is to do next (whatever way you answer first question)? Cheers, Petros471 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Petros471. First of all, thanks for your vote of confidence. :-) Now, on a strict vote count, I see seven deletes from Wikipedians in good standing. I count 11 keeps, all from very new users who have very few (or no) edits beyond those related to the article in qustion. I only see one non-delete vote that's valid, and that's for a merge, by Jumbo Snails, who is fairly new, but who I don't consider to be a "bad faith" voter. So, if you count those who are Wikipedians in good standing, I count seven deletes and one merge & redirect. Seems a pretty cut-and-dried case of a Delete, discounting invalid votes from new users and sockpuppets. Now, I suggest that you tell these guys about WP:DRV if they still dispute your vote closure, but honestly, this was a very obvious case of sockpuppetry. AfD is not about counting votes as they appear, and perhaps these guys need to be informed of that, and if they still want to bring up a DRV, they are welcome to, but I'm sure the deletion review will end with an endorsement of your AfD closure. Keep up the good work, and take a look here (the second Law). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've already pointed them to deletion review, no takers so far. I later gave a fuller explanation of the closure (one IP at least did seem to think it was more than just a vote, but then that IP decided to vandalise my userpage...) on Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board. Oh, and 1 in 10? Surely it's more like 1 in 2? Petros471 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
hahaha... some days I get no complaints, some days it feels like I get complaints for half of my closures. I think 1 in 10's a good average. :-) Oh, BTW, I'm going to wait a short period of time, but Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board should be speedy-deleted as a talk page for a non-existent article (with its capitalisation) or deleted article (if you ignore its capitalisation). I'll encourage those folks to move their conversation to Talk:Road Runner Records. --Deathphoenix ʕ 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Simone page

In response to your RFI: talk page blanking is vandalism, and can be reported to WP:AIV after warning. The article edits aren't necessarily vandalism, but as Woohookitty says, page protection can be applied. See WP:RFPP if you need to post a request for that. If the edits aren't that frequent though you are best off just watchlisting and reverting when need. Cheers, Petros471 17:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Eleemosynary 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunder Bay Northern Hawks

Could you please explain why keep was the result of the AfD - was it simply all the ice hockey guys wanting to keep it - because no one has offere a reaosnable explanation of how a youth team (and that is all they are) are notable enough to be in WP.

Thanks

Robertsteadman 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was considering closing that as no consensus, but the result would have been the same. Plenty of the keeps were from established, respected Wikipedian editors (who do a lot more than just hockey articles, I think a couple might not even have come from that). I don't really think it could have been closed as delete, without going against consensus. Petros471 13:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
But its not meant to be a vote - its meant to be on the arguement - was there ANY evidence offered that showed how ANY youth sports team is notable? Several simply aid "notable", or "clearly notable" but offered no proof or arguement to support ht==this - even the page authoers have yet to provide any evidence that youth sportts teams are notable in any way. I think the result should have been, on the vbalance of argeument, delete or, at absolute worst, merge with the league article - surely there's a logic that ALL youth sports teams should simply be on a league article IF that league is notable enoug to warrant its own article (which MOST won't. I will consider openign a deletion review - sometimes the right result is not the democratic one! Robertsteadman 15:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
My job as a closing admin is to judge the consensus of the discussion. There was no consensus (yes even when taking into account quality of arguments, etc) to delete. I suggest merging might well be a good way forward. Merge doesn't require an AFD result to carry out, you are welcome to carry out a merge right now. Petros471 19:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A shame that wasn't a suggestion in your closing because I can see the ice hockey project leaping on it as they did with teh AfD.... they claim tehy were told by an admin to have sepatate articles for EVERY youth team..... surely that's illogical, unencyclopedic and totally nonsensical? (rhetorical)Robertsteadman 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if you find them doing that with this article, feel free to point out where, so I can remind them that merging is still a legitimate possibility. Petros471 20:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

I'm not sure if I contacted you last time I was doing a list update or not. Anyway, you're coming near the top of the request list for admin coaching, and I was just checking if you were still interested in receiving it. If so just let me know and I'll assign you a couple of coaches (actually, if you reply quicker than the others I've contacted you'll probably be assigned me and Lar straight away :) Let me know either way, or if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say I would take it, though I am uncertain if I wish to become an admin! I still have a wish, but I am not sure if I could face another RfA! However, I'd love to have the chance to have admin coaching, as I believe I will (eventually!) become an admin. Computerjoe's talk 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I think Lar has some good 'admin reading' material lined up, which is probably just the thing you need. I suggest you set up a subpage (such as User:Computerjoe/Admin coaching) to co-ordinate efforts. See you over there :) Petros471 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Page created. Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Amykocot

Looks like you did the right thing by nominating the articles for deletion and warning the user for spam, but as you mention there isn't much point in blocking at this moment as edits have stopped for now. I'll leave it on RFI for a bit to keep watch, feel free to re-report once I've archived if this user returns. Cheers, Petros471 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and thanks for leaving the user there. It would definitely be premature to remove just because there haven't been any new contributions for a few days: the user demonstrates a consistent editing pattern of editing in a couple of distinct bursts, dating between June 2 and June 20. We may well be in for another burst soon. The important thing is that somebody is keeping an eye out for this user - this seemed to be as good a way as any to give people a head's up. Ideally it needs some people on RC-patrol to have the username in their "keep an eye on" list, since the editor tends to focus on new articles and rarely watched ones. They'd obviously been able to operate for some time, racking up over 60 edits before anybody cottoned on. Is there anyway of notifying RC patrollers? TheGrappler 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've now added Amykocot to the vandalism IRC channel blacklist. How much attention that gets from RC patrollers depends on the time of day. Petros471 18:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. I guessed such a blacklist existed, but vandal-fighting generally isn't my thing. Of course, I'm sure the editor will just re-emerge with a new name! TheGrappler 18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Steadman

You recently removed all reference to this RFI. It appears that this isn't listed in the archives or anywhere else. Is this usual practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.8 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the notice in bold at the top of the page says "Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice." You can see the contents of the report in this edit. My edit summary in that link also contains the reasons for its removal and links for more appropriate places to take this dispute. Petros471 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

---what a surprise that this was posted by an anon - I wonder which registered user it really is???? If only an RFCU could be run.....Robertsteadman 20:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)