User talk:Peter/Archive12

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

A RfA thank you from en:User:Xyrael

WikiThanks

File:AviXyrael.gif

I'd like to thank you Petros471 for either supporting, opposing, commenting, nominating, reading, editing, promoting and/or anything else that you may have done for my successful request for adminship (I've broken the one thousand sysop barrier!); I'm thanking you for getting involved, and for this I am very grateful. I hope to be able to serve Wikipedia more effectively with my new tools and that we can continue to build our free encyclopedia, for knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks 8) —Xyra e l / 11:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all the work you put in nominating me, it was really good of you. —Xyra e l / 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for more Admin coachine

I've finished working with Terence Ong, though I'll continue to advise him informally as he works on some things. I'd like to try taking two at a time to see if I can help out with the backlog. I also wondered if we should list our timezones - it might make it easier to match things up. For instance, I'm GMT -5 and Terence was in GMT +7, so hooking up was a little difficult at times. Shell ^babelfish 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in full Admin coaching

I'm really busy setting up a new portal right now, but am here to stay, so I might as well learn more about how the community operates. Maybe I'm not the fellow that gets requested, but I want to know more if I'm called. BusterD 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Ralston Saul image

Hi there,

Ages ago I uploaded John Ralston Saul's official images as Viceregal consort of Canada. It was removed by an anon ip address from the page and later you deleted it because it no longer used. I believe it qualifies as fair use because it was created an his official portrait which was intended for widespread use. It was available for free as a high resolution download from gg.ca (since his wife Adrienne Clarkson left office it is no longer available there. It was also available as a free glossy print to anyone who wrote to Rideau Hall or called a 1-800 number.

I personally would like to locate a copy of it because Dr. Saul is coming to my University and I would like to print it off for his autography (rather than pay the $30 to buy one of his books. )

I am gonna carbon copy my conversation with Carnilo

Hi.

I sent you a message a while back while you were on holiday but you didn't respond to it (its above on this page). OrphanBot deleted an image of Dr. John Ralston Saul called Bigphotojonralstonsaulcc.jpg on 09:52, 7 April 2006.

This was Dr. Saul's official photography from the website of the Governor General of Canada (Saul was Viceregal consort of Canada). The photo was taken by Rideau Hall which is linked to the Department of National Defence of Canada. I know this means it was not Public Domain, however, it was produced with the intention that it be readily available to the general public. It was available in high resolution downloan on www.gg.ca, and was also available for free as a glossy print to anyone who called a 1-800 number or wrote to Rideau Hall (for example if the Royal Canadian Legion wanted a new photo of the Vice-Regal Consort...a really useless role and im sure there weren't many requests).

Since there is no pd alternative, I think it can safely be reuploaded and put on the page as either a promotional photo or as an official canadian politician photo {{Canada-politician-photo}} (although the vice-regal consort, as consort to the head of state is above politics...but Saul openly questioned the Government of Paul Martin so he really wasn't...

Anyway, he was going to speak at my University and I was going to print off that photo for him to sign, but it was gone. And since he and Adrienne Clarkson are no longer in office the photo is not available on gg.ca anymore. If you can't reupload it, can you possible e-mail it to me ?

Thanks Dowew 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

   Are you sure you've got the image name correct? OrphanBot's logs don't show it ever having encountered an image with that name. --Carnildo 07:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

       In responce to your post above, yes, the name is correct see 2. Does OrphanBot delete the log after a while or something ? Dowew 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

           OrphanBot didn't remove the image from that page. It was removed on May 23, 2006 by 69.195.23.55, and deleted on July 13 by Petros471 as an unused fair-use image. You might be confusing this with OrphanBot's removal of Image:Jrs jyt230.jpg on April 7. The image was deleted recently enough that it's probably possible to undelete it; try contacting Petros471. --Carnildo 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--I am hoping you might still have this photo somewhere. If it is could you possible re-upload it and tag it as Canada-politician-photo

numerous websites have used the official photo of Adrienne Clarkson (taken at the same time as Saul's) on their websites either to promote the official or to mock it (once I saw her official portrait with the Imperial State Crown photoshoped on her head because she had been acting "too regal".

If it is not possible to re-upload, could you possible e-mail it to me as an attachment ?

Please respond on my talk page

Dowew 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored Image:Bigphotojonralstonsaulcc.jpg, tagged it with the fair use template you suggested and added it to John Ralston Saul. To make sure the image stays as fair use in the article it might be a good idea to upload a lower resolution version. Petros471 13:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

Hi Petros, it was a while since I signed up for admin coaching. I was kind of hoping to get it in during the summer, but with school starting up now, I'll probably be too busy to keep it up. Thanks for the offer, though, and I hope to pick it up in a couple months! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming (Anthology51)

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Petros471 12:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. We do not consider this spamming at all - this is highly accomlpished video documentary which we consider to be valuable and useful for people to see. in nearly every link theere is access to e.g. IMDB, which you could consider promotion - since there is access to Amazon. I don't appreciate this being removed without consultation. many people have visited our academic site through wikipedia and enjoyed the wealth of information there which is provided by accomplished producers and directors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthology51 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry for not replying earlier. As you've not been editing recently, I won't go into a detailed discussion of your points now, but for the record I'd better say that I disagree, and that I still advise you not to add your links to Wikipedia. Petros471 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this revert. Much appreciated. Benjamin stewart05 :-) 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin pic

Hi, could you please add some labels to Image:En-admins-articles-users-edits.png? As it stands, it's not clear which boxes and lines stand for which variables. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed the series labels on the right? If so hopefully the bars (number of admins) is clear, as that is the only series to be a bar. I realise the 3 lines might be hard to tell apart if you have trouble seeing different colours. Could you maybe suggest clearer colours? Petros471 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell the three lines apart from their color, but is not clear to me which label belongs to which line. While I suspected that the blue boxes are the admin counts, that should also be made explicit. The easiest would be to color the various labels I suppose. AxelBoldt 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you definitely see the series box (the one with the black border around it, and 'sample' of each series colour and style next to its label) which is to the right of the axis label (the one called Trend (Articles, Users, Edits))? This is the standard way Excel labels graphs, and as long as you can tell the difference between the colours seems clear enough to me. If you confirm you can see this (for example, if you may need to scroll horizontally at your screen resolution to do so) but still don't think that is clear enough, then I'll have a go at modifying it. Sorry if I'm sounding like a pain, it's hard to tell what you're thinking and seeing without being right next to you ;) Petros471 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops, I didn't scroll all the way to the right. Your graphic is perfect. Cheers, AxelBoldt 03:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, glad it's sorted :) Petros471 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Striver

"I will not reject the nomination"; yeah, it's buried in there somewhere. ~ PseudoSudo 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, still should have been added to main page by candidate, or nominator with permission, not a voter. Petros471 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~ PseudoSudo 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response on RFA

Please do not add somebody else's RFA to the main page. It does not look like it has been accepted, in which case there is no need to !vote on it. Petros471 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate did accept the nomination. I will not reject the nomination, not because i think it will succeed, rather to see how i am doing. [1] Please be more careful next time.--Jersey Devil 12:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but still should have been added to main page by candidate, or nominator with permission, not by you. Petros471 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like they said. A little less fast on the trigger there, next time. --Calton | Talk 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific rule against adding RFAs on the main page in which one is not the nominator or candidate? I just thought the nominator forgot to add it on.--Jersey Devil 12:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where it is written (if it is at all), but it's usual practice. It is very common for RFA subpages to be created and worked upon before being formally accepted and transcluded. I suggest that it might have been better to just drop a note on the candidates talk page reminding them that they need to transclude it when they are ready. Petros471 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, if there is no specific written policy on this then I don't see why I should be placed on the defensive here.--Jersey Devil 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't like to see an unessasery pile-on. I realise I didn't read the nomination correctly, and it did look suspicious with someone else adding it. I've found this "Finally, once the nomination has been accepted and the questions answered, any editor (including the nominator or the nominee) can link it to the RfA page. This is done by following the "edit this page" link in the appropriate section below and adding the template provided at the bottom of this page (with the nominee's name substituted for USERNAME) to the RfA page. Ideally, the nominee should do this when they are satisfied with their answers to the questions." in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, which (in my opinion) could do with a re-wording, I'll suggest it on the talk page. Sorry for 'placing you on the defensive'. Petros471 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Let's just forget about it.--Jersey Devil 12:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Admin Coaching

That is fine. I am perfectly content to wait. :) I understand that a lot of the coaches are tied up at the moment. —Mir l e n 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA review

I'd like to ask your opinion on something. Over the past couple of weeks, I have encountered an increasingly large number of situations which could have been handled much more efficiently had I been an admin. I guess what I'm saying is that I know you're very busy, and I was thinking of applying for adminship earlier than you might get to completing my review. I would like to know if you think this is okay. It's nothing personal, and don't feel you have to answer one way or the other. Thanks, --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Petros, hi.... I was wondering, would you be interested in helping out as a mediator, in a case where the other mediator has gone AWOL? The thread is at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. We had a mediator, ^demon (talk · contribs), but he posted a formal "I'm too busy with school, bye" message [2], and we've been at an impasse for weeks now. We've tried posting about the problem to Essjay and WP:AN, but haven't had any luck finding an admin who would like to step in. Would you like to help? --Elonka 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka! Of course I would like to help- however, I'm going to have to decline this one, as I'm also pretty busy working in real life. I notice that Thatcher131 has volunteered, so hopefully something can be sorted out. Petros471 08:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

We just double-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of wiki farms (left for you to see, 'tis interesting). Shall we organise ourselves to stop clashing? Thanks! —Xyrael / 13:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. —Xyrael / 13:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz.com AfD

Thank you for stepping up to the plate (finally, someone did!) and making a decision on the MyWikiBiz.com article. I'm in agreement that it wasn't an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, at least at this time. I'm confident that in 6 months time, it probably will be. --MyWikiBiz 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching.

Hi Petros. I just want to ask you about admin coaching. Yesterday, I noticed that there're Admins ID who is coach for other wikipedia who will become administrator. But I think your admin section is tany wikipedia can put their own ID on chart. Is it right? If I sign my ID on admin section what will they do? Or Will I find my admin coach? Let's preteding When Some Wikipedian nominates me for adminship, how Can I have my admin coach during voting? That's what I'm asking you for. Cheers! Daniel's page ☎ 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, so I'll try and explain, and if it doesn't answer your question you can always get back to me for clarification!

If you are interested in being coached under the Esperanza admin coaching programme you need to sign up at the bottom of the "Requests" list on that page. Eventually (there is a very long backlog there) you will be assigned (i.e. you don't ask anyone personally for it) a couple of coaches to help you out with admin related skills and tasks.

You might have seen my personal rfa reviews subpage. This is totally separate from the admin coaching program, and is something I do independently from anyone else. If you ask me to, I'll take a look at your contributions, see how suitable you'd be to become an admin, with the view to nominating you if I think you'd be suitable. I'd rather that only people who were reasonably confidant that they will soon be suitable for a WP:RFA nomination asked for that. If I nominate you via that method, I will provide plenty of support during the RFA process. Also note, that because I'm pretty busy in real life, there will also be a long wait before I have enough time to complete anything on that page.

If another user decides to nominate you, it is up to them how much support they provide. You are probably better off waiting for a nomination from an experienced user (for example, but not necessarily, an admin) than accepting one from a new user, who will have less idea how the RFA process works.

None of the above is in any way a guarantee that you will become an admin, there are just ways to help out.

Hope that helps :) Petros471 09:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex Weapons Articles

A question about the AfD closure. Must they essentially be merged into respective games articles, or maybe just merging these two articles into one would be a solution? CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but there's nothing worth merging unless we're going to blatantly ignore WP:NOT. -- Steel 20:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the community decided; and nearly everything is just a community decision, sometimes fixed and generalized, sometimes specific for the case. However, the question is a bit different. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When closing the afd I had to decide which closure best fitted the general consensus of the community. While I think there is general consensus (though far clearer in other afds than in that particular one) that 'Game x Weapons' type article should not exist (per WP:NOT), there was a lot of support on this afd that at least a certain amount of the content on these article's was not simple a game guide or indiscriminate collection of information. Generally however, they tend to be game guides or just copy and pasts (in some form) of the game manual. Personally, I'd suggest having a (relatively short) section in each of the main articles (so yes, into respective games articles) discussing the style of the weapons etc. An external link can always be used to link to a detailed strategy guide. Please note however, that this is my personal opinion, the decision should be made based on discussion on the article's talk pages. Petros471 08:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 o'clock wave

I thought it go's by votes whether to Delete/Merge/Keep an Article? There was 4 keeps, 3 mergers so I thought I would be keeped. -- Bidgee 13:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is not a vote. I looked at the arguments presented as well as the number of !votes. Also a couple of people wanted the article deleted, so merge seemed like a sensible compromise with general support. Petros471 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I wasn't sure on how it worked. Thanks for the quick response! -- Bidgee 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Garaass

Would you consider re-blocking Garaass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely? That's clearly not a new account, so no point just giving a short block and then have to reblock if they return. Petros471 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say new user, not account, but it also happens to have been around a while and been vandalism only in that time. Petros471 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was torn on it as there were 1 or 2 good contribs. Still, vandalism far outweighs the legit contribs. Thanks for contacting me. I've blocked indef. Regards, alphaChimp^(talk) 14:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't check every single contrib but the ones I did were all sneaky vandalism. Thanks. Petros471 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log)
The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Signed...
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Delacroix

You willing to go ahead with some merging on those articles? Petros471 13:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it doesn't look at this point as if anyone is interested in keeping it at this point. If you are in favor of merging please say so on the deletion page. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. When I asked you there hadn't been any additional opinions added, and I was considering closing it as merge if you were willing (there certainly wasn't consensus to delete). Now it looks like there is more, and as I'd support that I've decided to !vote and let another admin close it. Petros471 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (PCE report from AIV)

PCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User that was repeatedly making up content out of thin air and adding it to wrestling articles. At first it was assumed it was a mistake by the user but they continued to do it even after being repeatedly warned on his talk page, and even after he admitted he was making the content up. When I gave him a second test4 warning, due to other edits he made two days after his first test4, he blanked his talk page [3]. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A considerable number of this users edits have not been reverted. Does that mean there are good edits mixed in with the bad? Petros471 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good mixed with the bad, I will not argue that, but the problem is admitting he's making info up over three days ago, receiving the full breadth of warnings and then continuing to do it again. I didn't report him for it even though he'd already been test4'd the first time because I was sure it was just a mistake and his response was to blank his talk page. Good edits can be made by bad users, nearly every story of an "indef blocked user" contains the stories of their many other valuable edits to wikipedia, but they don't excuse the violations. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the diff where the user admitted to making up info, and then example of where that has continued since then? Petros471 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff you're looking for [4]

Also he blanked his talk page again: [5] –– Lid^(Talk) 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diff, I managed not to find that one for some reason. Blanking a talk page by itself is not a good enough reason to block. Can you point to any edits made very recently (like today) that continue adding deliberately false information. Sorry to be a pain, I'm just trying to make sure I don't end up blocking a good faith contributor who's making (some) good edits without very good reason. Petros471 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking of the talk page is peripheral to the actual issue - blanking the warnings on his talk page. Some diffs from today [6]

[7] [8], some today are fine however some of the edits have no basis at all. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel the need to note that he has continued to make improper edits since your comment to him. Sevenzeroone 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need too. He keeps moving around finishers/signature moves for no reason, adding or removing bold/italics from the move names and continues adding fake ones. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

After his brief banning, he simply made his usual types of changes (The worst of which recently was on the Steve Corino page, which I corrected) logged out. His IP address is 65.35.218.31 Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sevenzeroone (talk • contribs) .

65.35.218.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Steve Corino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blocked the IP for 48 hours. Petros471 11:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ForestH2

There's another sock, ForestH5. Aqua fish talk 21:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

First off, apologies if I've already sent you a message like this- I though I had, but taking a look at your talk archives doesn't reveal it immediately but I may be wrong.

As you already have a lot of experience, could you please let me know what sort of things you are hoping to get out of the admin coaching programme? This will help me assign the right coaches to you. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was your first message for me, don't worry! :) I've been working as an admin on hungarian wiki for 7 months now, but I have problems with the deletion tools, vandal warning templates. I'd really like to become an admin here too, that's why I minimize my activity on hunwiki. I thought that the RfA should take place maybe in December. What do you think? I have 4000 edits now, and you can see my activities here on my user page. Anyway any suggestion is welcomed, I'm ready to learn. NCurse _work 06:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Steel359 and I give you some help with that then. I suggest setting up an admin coaching subpage to keep discussion together, such as User:NCurse/Admin coaching. Petros471 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to work together with you guys. :) Left a message on my talk page, I don't know whether you watch it, that's why I tell you here. NCurse _work 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've created User:NCurse/Admin coaching to get ready to work. :) Thanks in advance! NCurse _work 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great task! I start to work with it then let you know when I'm ready. :) NCurse _work 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm ready. Please have a look. NCurse _work 09:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfect for me. I hope the candidation will finish well. :) Thanks for any help! NCurse _work 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching (Steel359)

Hi there, I was just coming here to ask you if you ready for a trainee :) Does the above mean that you don't want one for now? If you've taken on coaching someone that's on the coaching waiting list already, can you please remove them from the list and add the relevant entry into the coaching box. If you're just doing it informally that's fine. Let me know if you have any questions etc. Cheers, Petros471 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is more informal from someone who jumped the queue a bit... But the coaching queue is very long so taking on another can't hurt. -- Steel 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well NCurse is at the top of the list, so I've suggested we help him out with the things mentioned on my talk page (in the message just above yours). Petros471 21:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's things?

All ok? Petros471 22:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very busy! - GCSEs then results (7A*3A + A add maths) and now 4 and a half A Levels, so lots of work, less time for wikipedia. But I edit as and when I can. Benjamin stewart05 :-) 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good stuff :) Petros471 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled Demolition of WTC

Hi Petros, I don't know if this is something you want to get into, or even should. But the article on the controlled demolition hypothesis for the WTC has be renominated for deletion[9] less than 24 hours after your decision to keep it. [10] I don't know how this sort of thing works among admins, but surely this is a bit quick?--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I was away from my computer all yesterday. Whilst I think it was inevitable that the article would receive another afd nomination, it is rather quick- the nominator should have left more time to see if the article would be significantly improved. However, now it is running I don't think I (or anyone else) should close it- just add your comments to the afd as usual (which can of course include the above argument, but should also argue from a content, not just procedural point of view). The first afd was rather unusual anyway so having a second afd with this particular article in focus is justifiable from that point of view. Petros471 07:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add a few comments about the content. It looks like it's going to be all right.--Thomas Basboll 15:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD category template deletion

Couple of comments on the message you've been sending out to a few people (I've been expecting one myself since seeing your remove the template from some of my afd closures). Firstly, if I'm viewing the afd discussion on the log page (which I usually do, especially when closing AFDs) I close it by clicking on the 'edit' link by the section header. If the 'remove this' template is positioned above the section header (often it is) then I can't remove it (of course I could then click on the page edit tab, but that's extra work, and I don't think the closing admin should be forced to do that when a bot can and does). Secondly you point to Wikipedia:AfD categories as being 'official policy'. Actually I see that it is tagged as a guideline. Petros471 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In comment of your message on my talk page, regarding policy/guideline, I see that it has been changed so I have edited my comments for future, thank you. Also, I know in the past that there was an issue with the template appearing above the title in section 0 causing the exact issue you stated. Because of that issue, I have not been leaving message for people when the template is in section 0. As you will notice, I have not left you a message recently about it; I just deleted it and moved on.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would explain why I didn't get the message then :) I just wanted you to know in case you hadn't realised (and obviously being involved in that project maybe do something about it!) Cheers, Petros471 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome rfa vote

Hi there again Petros, I noticed you wanted to know about my odd RfA vote, well I occasionally support users' RfA's if they don't stand a chance of passing. It's not the first time I've done it either. Why you ask? Well,

There's no harm in it, as it won't actually affect the end result
It's to help the candidate feel a bit better about themselves
I believe throwing a bunch of oppose votes in someones face is unneccasary, when ultimately it won't make any difference

I encourage you and other users to do the same, you could say I'm taking WP:BITE a bit further.--Andeh 10:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....long overdue...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Petros is awarded this barnstar for his devoting to helping clearing the image backlogs which are ignored by so many administrators. Your commitment to honouring your "election promises" is very much appreciated in this political age. Thankyou also for helping to train more Wikipedians to become equipped in these skills, Blnguyen \| BLabberiNg 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Backlogs eh, so many of them... I'll keep having a go at them, though don't have as much time as before to do so- maybe this is why you're on wikibreak? I hope to see you back sometime. Thanks, Petros471 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision not to block 68.185.199.64

Could you clarify this for me? If a user has multiple prior blocks for vandalism, has never made a contribution to Wikipedia that wasn't vandalism, and then returns from a one-week block and immediately begins vandalizing again, is it really necessary to issue a warning before listing the vandal at WP:AIV? --Rrburke 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an IP, it is quite possibly shared. The returning vandalism was yesterday, and therefore not an immediate problem that needs dealing with now. As the article being vandalised was different it was not obvious that it was the same vandal (though looking more closely at the contribs I know see that it is possible). If it is clearly the same person returning and the IP doesn't appear to be shared, then yes I would block without further warnings, but if there is a reasonable chance this isn't the case a warning is more appropriate before a block. Petros471 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. --Rrburke 15:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]