User talk:Peter/Archive8

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

Wikipedia:Media help

This was recently vandalised - I think it should be blocked from editing apart from admins. I don't think that there is any need for anyone else to edit it, and it is a project page. If you are in agreement, would you do that? Regards Benjaminstewart05 17:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply earlier as I've been away for a couple of days. I don't think page protection is really needed for that page, as looking at the history they have received remarkably little vandalism (I was quite surprised!). If it was I'd semi protect (to only stop new users) from editing, in case non-admin editors have useful contributions to make (though I agree it probably doesn't need much editing, and I would have protected if it was subject to more vandalism). See WP:RFPP if you need a page protected when I'm not around. Petros471 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

Can you block this IP adress for vandalism, just look at his/her's contributions - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.213.195.18 and he/she has vandalised since the last warning.Benjaminstewart05 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to above, as the IP stopped editing a while ago, I won't block. See WP:AIV for reporting simple vandalism (always report users needing a block there when I'm not obviously online, as it gets attention from a lot of admins).

How are the exams going? Petros471 16:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying these issues, and providing those useful links, much appreciated. My exams are going fine, 3 more weeks left! But wikipedia can provide some useful background information to studies, so that is good.

Benjaminstewart05 18:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong protection

Please see the board again. Homey asked for protection after he himself made this edit:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Israeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56518885&oldid=56518001

The edit is clearly false. It states that the term has been used by X , Y, as well as Z while Z (Shulamit Aloni) have never used it. You have frozen an article in a form that include false and libel.

Zeq 16:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied there as well. may i suggest you remove protection and watch: there is no edit war going on. Zeq 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

Looks like I will be seeing you over at WP:RFI - thanks again!

-- Nataly a 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on the IP Vandal (Contribs review request from CTSWyneken (t c))

I'm afraid that header is out of date (it was subst: from an old version of the template). Vandalism reports should go to WP:AIV for fastest response. Anyway, that IP got blocked by another admin (probably someone on RC patrol). Cheers, Petros471 12:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback! Since my failed RfA a month ago, I've been trying to involve myself more widely in the community. Since someone may some day renominate me, would you be willing to take a look at my recent activity and advise if I'm on the right track? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look sometime. As the opposition raised to your last RFA included some pretty serious reasons (true or not I can't possibly say) I'd advise leaving it at least another month before considering it. I'll give you some more feedback later. Petros471 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. I'm in no rush. I'm not about to allow my name to go up again before September in any case. --CTSWyneken 12:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on St Francis Xavier's College IP

Any news?

Sorry, none as yet. I may or may not get some on Monday, though. I'll enquire anyway. Thanks. Beno1000 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free infantry

I see that you removed my speedy delete tag from the Free infantry article. What would have been the appropriate tag? This article does not seem the least bit encyclopaedic to me, just little more than fancruf. What is the proper procedure, afd? Thanks. ---Charles 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:AFD or WP:PROD is the way to go. {{db-spam}} was wrongly edited to include a non-existant speedy deletion criteria (A6 is for attack pages, not spam- there is no criteria for spam). So you're very welcome to put the article up for deletion (I'd support it) but it can't be go via speedy. Cheers, Petros471 18:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I will put it up for afd. ---Charles 18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, But I'm Done

I actually backed out of that issue. There's multiple people on both sides of the debate who I think have sockpuppets, but I've washed my hands of the issue. If you do need some help though, I guess I can lend a hand. ^demon^{[yell at me]}_{[ubx_war_sux]} /00:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Freddy Jones Band Article

Please restore The Freddy Jones Band article. This is a very famous band, not only in Chicago, but across the country. Capricorn Records is one the top recording labels in the world. Capricorn has distributed a number of FJB's albums and the fact that the band has reuinited is extremely article-worthy. Again, please restore. Many thanks.

--Textualist 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've undeleted it. The article is in major need of cleanup, and should be written less like an advert, or else it could find itself on WP:AFD. Below is a welcome message that contains some useful links. Feel free to ask me any further questions. Petros471 19:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Petros. You are right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Textualist (talk • contribs) .

Just to remind you, please sign all your posts to talk pages, but not edits to article pages. Thanks :) Petros471 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

In reply to Petros, i am both Quantumchemistry fan and Chemaddict, chemaddict is my nickname, this is 100% legitimate because you can change this on preferences when logged in. Im sorry for the all the 'vandalism' from my IP, however i feel the entire thing is rather petty - if you call that a personal attack (which i will refrain from doing so in the future) then i am very sorry, i didn't realise how incredibley sensitive you lot are.Femto, if you get a kick out of blocking people - get a life - i see you have been a valuable asset to wikipedia and I do not doubt you sincerity in any way at all. I appreciate what you do here, yet i do feel victimised and in my personal opinion i do feel just that. As a person, i do not like people who use power and prowess to discriminate against people. I have a network and people on my network, my self included, are wikipedians. People, therefore with the same IP address and with the same interets, make edits on wikipedia. I would understand if my information was not correct but all the edits that chemaddict (quantumchemistryfan) has made to articles are all 100% correct. Under the United Nations convention of human rights i am allowed to speak my mind, and although i understand there has to be some restrictions, i do not feel i have ventured beyond these.chemaddict 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can i also point out that two different IP address have been mentioned 80.229.237.12 and 81.129.189.192. So both of these are me i presume? This is ridiculous, i am getting blamed for multiple things. chemaddict 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Most talk related to this is on User talk:Quantumchemistryfan. Replies are there. Petros471 21:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Email

Hi Petros!

I certainly can see the need for an email address, but before I do I'd like to ask how much spam you get by doing so? I'm only asking because I've got two email accounts - one which is my personal one (gmail account) and I only give to people I know, and the other one (a hotmail acccount) I give out to people I don't know yet.

Thanks! --Fir0002 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I replied via email). Petros471 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed re: Disappeared user.

Hiya Petros471, I wonder if you could be kind enough to help me for a while. I warned a user by the name of Bluenoser, back in march, for Vandalism to the tweenies article. He has also had other messages left regarding things he has uploaded, and all of a sudden, on June 5th, boom. He disappears. Blanked his userpage, blanked his talk page, and now has a red username, I assume this means he has removed himself from WP. Is there any chance of getting bluenoser's IP's checked and just seeing if He's reincarnated himself? I am curious more than anything else. Thanks a lot. Thor Malmjursson 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Thor's Pet Icelandic Yack (Multilingual Talk)[reply]

Bluenoser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Userpage: this user has never had a userpage, hence the red link. It hasn't been deleted either (no deleted edits viewable to me in the history). A user can't 'remove themselves' from Wikipedia in the sense that all contributions (except deleted ones) will always be available (and deleted ones to admins, if the article is known).

Talk page: This was blanked, a common (though certainly discouraged) thing done by users who've received warnings.

Checkuser: To check the IP address you'd have to file a checkuser request. However, in this case it will be rejected, as 'checkuser if not for fishing' (for privacy reasons). Basically you have to have suspicion already about a particular sock account being used for vandalism. Take a look at the guidelines at the top of the checkuser page for more.

So basically, I wouldn't worry about it too much, just keep an eye on that user/the article, and treat it like any other vandalism (revert, warn, report for block). Cheers, Petros471 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Barnstar

I think, but can't be certain, that this is your first one received and my first one given. So here goes: (original barnstar)

Wow! Thanks! A barnstar! I never get barnstars! Yeah, it's my first one. Santa gave me a bike once, and I've had a wiffle bat, but never a real barnstar. How wickedly awesome. Thanks a million! I really appreciate it. Snoutwood (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad you like it :) Considering you've been around far longer than I have, it was long overdue! Petros471 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004, baby! Snoutwood (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Soil

I hope you will be interested in this. As I recall you had some need for an article on soil chemistry. -- Paleorthid 06:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anywhere near as much about it as I'd probably like to, but thanks for letting me know about the project. I'll see if I can help out at all. Petros471 19:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert.Rsm99833 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, our friend is still at it on my page. You may need to block. Rsm99833 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Now blocked. Petros471 19:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

159.247.236.126

A month or so past, you blocked 159.247.236.126 fro vandalism to various sites after repeated warnings. His temporary block has expired and he is back and at it again. Can you take a look? 159.247.236.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) That was already his second block last time and he has been warned about vandalism 19 times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juneappal (talk • contribs) .

Oops - sorry about not signing. Juneappal 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's a shared IP, so blocks/warnings in the past often arn't that relavent because it could be diffrent users using the IP. Unless you can point to some specific edits that show it's the same person (i.e. exactly the same vandalism edit over time or something) then best just report recent vandalism after recent warning to WP:AIV. Petros471 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - I started to go back through the contribs, noting that vandalism on various days seemed to make lots of references to connecticut high-school life, but all I cam up with, really, is that it's probably different kids who share a terminal at Shelton High School. Last fall, the kids who shared the terminal were either more clever or even helpful. Since this spring's crop are about to graduate it probably makes sense to leave it be, and see who sits down there in the fall.Juneappal 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thank you

Sure, glad to help! :) Cheers, Sango 123 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Request

I have been attacked one time too many by User:Andrew Homer - see his response to my last request he stop personal attacks [1] I am going to start an RfC and I was hoping you would certify it as a user who tried to resolve the problem. If you will leave a message about this on my talk page I set up for this purpose, you can also see more about it as I am drafting the RfC there.

Regards, Lundse 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you sent me that as I've just given a npa warning. I'm not sure how much I can help with the RFC, as I haven't really been following this case. However, if blatant personal attacks continue from that user I don't think I'll have a problem issuing a block. Petros471 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Looking at the User talk:Lundse/AH RfC as it stands now, what do you think (my first time, I am nervous about screwing this up). Lundse 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's ok (I say guess, because I've never taken anything to RFC myself, although I've read plenty of them, and contributed to some), except you need to provide some diffs for evidence of having tried and failed to solve the dispute. If you want me to comment further please could you let me know on my talk (so I can see new messages note!). Cheers, Petros471 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating Akshardham

Hi,

Some changes were made by an anonymous user User:83.67.4.89 in the Akshardham page.(probably to remove the notion of akshardham temple)

The Akshardham has different perceptions in popluar media and in religious philosophy.

I have included a link to the Akshardham (Philosophy) in the akshardham disambiguation page called Akshardham (disambiguation) and redirected Akshardham to that page.

To give proper justice to philosophical meaning, the link for philosophy has been placed above temple links, still the user User:83.67.4.89 has repetedly undone this atleast 4 times, I have to time and again redirect Akshardham page to its disambiguation. I also have placed messages on Talk:Akshardham. But they are all in vein. Please take necessary action. Uday 10:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation, would suggest that Akshardham should be the disambiguation page, Akshardham (disambiguation) should redirect to that page, and the other article linked as they are now. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Of course the message below this on your talk page might change things... Petros471 19:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Andrew James

What's deal with such copyvios? Is it speedy-able since, in a way, commercial? Can he release it as Chairman? Can you clarify the law or the WP rules on this? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be speedy deleted for copyright violations if they meet a set of requirements. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (A7). As this and the other deletion reason was disputed (with good reason) then I removed the speedy tag. It can still be taken to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (that page also has more info about author's releasing their own work), or articles for deletion. Does that answer your question? Petros471 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I need to understand two things, which you may or may not know enough to answer:

Does a UK registered charity orchestra which sells tickets etc. constitute a commercial entity for the purposes of CSD A8 as "someone engaged in directly making money off the content", and
Can an employee (Chairman) of a charity org release the org's copyright to website content - or if the release invalid.

Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, don't really know... sorry. Copyright issues aren't exactly my speciality (unfortunately that's also true for a lot of admins). You could try asking on the talk pages of the links I gave you above, as you've got more chance of finding someone there who does! I just removed the speedy, as there being enough grounds to argue the case for it being kept, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be considered for deletion (just not speedy deleted). Petros471 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fir0002

Thanks for letting me know. I've removed my opposition. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA for Gwernol

Hi. I've done some final tweaking to my answers to the standard questions. I'm pretty happy with them as they stand. I'm ready to accept the nomination once you are. Again, many thanks, Gw e rnol 14:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. best, Gwernol 14:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has taken your vote the wrong way (I'm strongly assuming they did!), so would you mind moving it back with a note attacked to that effect? Petros471 17:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you've already done that :) Petros471 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. If it's really a problem, I can change it, but I just thought it was funny. I really like Gwernol, from what I know of her. Please feel free to do it yourself if you feel that it'll negatively effect the RfA (I may not be around for awhile). Snoutwood (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you've already done that :) Petros471 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right. Erm, I meant he, of course. But I'm never wrong about anything! Snoutwood (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ;) Petros471 17:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Time for another to coach

Now that EivindFOyangen is basically gaining more experience, I think I can take on someone else for admin coaching. I think there are a few admins on the coaches list not assigned, and might be an idea to start 'pruning' the requests list using the new rules, to try and get this moving a little bit. I can help out if you want with that, but as you're officially the coordinator I'll let you have the first bash if you want :) Petros471 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm going to be semi-away for a while, feel free to take charge of assigning coachees and coaches. I think I've pretty much gone over the first 15 in the list with the new criteria and checked that they meet it, but double-checking wouldn't hurt. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there any special requirements to take note of? Like for example I notice the top request is from an existing admin, is that treated in the same way as the others? Petros471 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Existing admins is one of the issues that has never been solved. The only "rule" I have is to not put two coaches that don't like each other, or a coach that has had trouble with a coachee before. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniverseToday sockpuppets

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)[reply]

Re:Admin coaching (replies from coaches)

Yes

You are signed up as a volunteer for the Esperanza admin coaching program, but as far as I can see you are not assigned to anyone as a coach. Are you ok to take on someone? Petros471 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Kim Bruning 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've did a fair number of assignments yesterday, but I've been leaving the best to last ;) As you are one of (if not the, I've not checked that hard!) most experienced admins on the coaches list I thought you'd be the most suitable coach for those who are already admins, or got a lot of experience already. The top request is currently from Bhadani, I did ask him if he still wanted a coach, so far no reply, but if he does then I thought you could help out there. Also Tangotango has requested help from an experienced user, but was willing to be pushed back in the schedule for full coaching (Tango is the next in the queue, the others in front are not currently active), so if you're willing to drop over to User talk:Tangotango and do any informal coaching needed there, that'd be great :) How does that all seem? Petros471 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. :-) I'll go talk with TangoTango. I'll put it on my todo list. Kim Bruning 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

I'll move it to the active section, although I notice that SonicAD hasn't been here very much the past couple weeks. Sorry for not noticing before, but I thought that I was supposed to be notified on my talk page when I was assigned a new coachee, and I never was. Academic Challenger 21:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My presumptive coachee looks to have gone inactive, so you can probably reassign me. Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to take on a new coachee. Banes and I usually work together, if that's of any help. Regards, Sango 123 23:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, go right ahead. I really haven't seen much from any of my coachees in a while, but go right ahead whenever and wherever. I'm here :) -Mysekurity^[m!] 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm ready to take on a new coachee as well. And like Sango says, we usually work together. Thanks for the nudge! (Sorry the new Banes scares you :P). Kind regards -- Bane s 11:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. You can assign me another coachee. Kimchi.sg 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(From Fang Aili)

You've been assigned HighwayCello to coach, along with User:Mysekurity. If you have any questions about the coaching please feel free to ask me. Cheers, Petros471 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros, thanks for doing the admin coaching program! Also--User:Firsfron contacted me about admin coaching a few days ago, and I said I would be his coach (not knowing when the coaching program would become active). I don't mind coaching 3 people, if that's ok with you. --F a ng Aili ^talk 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I didn't see that (it's not in the coaching box is it?). If you're ok with taking on more than one at a time that's great, because there's a big backlog, so any help appreciated! Who's the third? Petros471 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not in the coaching box.

So I'm coaching User:HighwayCello and User:Firsfron. Right? --F a ng Aili ^talk 20:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that's right (after your correction - sorry that the above message wasn't clear!). I'll be doing an update of the box soon so I will add you in. Petros471 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sprotecting my user page

Thanks for the sprotect on my user page; it was getting a little tiresome hitting the revert so often :-) And of course a big thanks for the great nomination you wrote for me. So far it is going much better than I imagined it would. Much appreciated, Gwernol 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. As I said you'll be able to do it soon! I'm replying to your other comment in the heading above about your RFA, as it's a more relevant topic heading! Petros471 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the thing with the nomination is, that I do most of the work by doing the contributions review. The nom is just the fun bit that comes after that. As I wouldn't nominate someone unless I'm personally sure that they would do a good job, I guess it ends up being pretty thorough! To be honest, it's going pretty well as I expected. Despite the comments about my nom, I could have just written 'great candidate, been here since x with y edits' and you'd have still been a clear pass. A nomination or few away I'm going to try and find a less obvious (though still suitable in my opinion of course) candidate and see if I can get a pass then. Oh and while on the subject of thank-you's I thought I'd better just check that you're not planning on spamming everyone with one of those standard thank you templates are you? A better option might be to do what I did and post a general one on your user/talk page and then send any personal ones that you feel are relevant (for example if someone provides you with new feedback or something). Petros471 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice

I took your advice and changed my signature. Do you think it needs further simplification?--The ikiroid (talk desk advice) 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok like that, although might be better if there was something to separate the three links (just a / or | ) and maybe change 'advice' to 'give advice' or similar to make it clear that people aren't about to read a guide to wikilife :) Petros471 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed it to a dot. My only worry was that all of the words in the parentheses are treated as one, and they are moved to the next line if they don't fit at the end of a line of text (I hope that makes sense). Again, thank you for your advice. I want to be an admin someday, but I want to be an extremely active wikipedian before I become one. It wouldn't do wikipedia much good to have sysops tripping over themselves because of premature promotions!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·give advice) 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Admin coaching - (trainee's replies)

Hi. Thanks for notifying me who my coaches are.--Jusjih 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ESP/AC

Hi Petros471, thank you for your message. Yes, I probably won't be needing it right now - you can either bump me down the queue so other people can get coaching, or you can remove me entirely. I'd still like to get some coaching from an experienced Wikipedian, though, if possible. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting blanking on my userpage. And thanks for informing me of my coaches. I will take it up with them now. Thanks again. --soum^সৌমোyasch 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(from Deryck Chan)

You are signed up for the admin coaching program, and as it's been a while since that time (long backlog), I just wanted to check- do you still want to be coached? Petros471 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still wanna be coached; although I can't be very actively appearing here because I'm having my exams and my current adminship on the Cantonese Wikipedia is taking me much wikiing time. Tell me what to do next. -D e ryc k C. 05:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to the 'Unassigned' list. I'll let you know when another coach becomes free (we have one at the free at the moment, but we usually assign two). It's not too much of a problem if you're not a heavy editor, but it is good to show regular contributions to show you're still around, especially after your exams are over. Petros471 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in fact a heavy editor, just not here, but on the Cantonese Wikipedia where I'm already sysop. --D e ryc k C. 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condem's Admin coaching

Hi there Petros, thanks for agreeing to admin coach me! I created User:Condem/Admin coaching as you suggested. I'll put something up there tomorrow about what I think I could do with improving on, etc. Thanks again! ConDem^Talk 00:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002's RFA

Petros471, thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for adminship, it passed with a final tally of (65/3/3) - which I find both amazing and humbling. Thanks a lot for your message and all the help you've given. I hope to live up to your expectations/hopes. If at any stage you need to contact me to point out a mistake in my conduct or to request I do something, please make sure to tell me on my talk page. --Fir0002 08:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archiving

Hi there, I'm dropping by your talk page because it's nearly your turn on the list for admin coaching, and just wanted to check that you were available for it. I noticed that with this edit you removed content from your talk page without archiving it. Whilst it isn't official policy I strongly recommend that you archive old messages rather than removing them (for several reasons, I'd be happy to explain if you want me to). Therefore, I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Feel free to ask me any further questions. Cheers, Petros471 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said you thought I should "archive" old talk. Doesn't Wikipedia do this automatically? Thanks, Sarah crane 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sort of. All pages have a history (see the history tab at the top of each page). This is kept automatically, and in the case of your talk page it is quite easy to find where you removed old message (you used an edit summary, and the history is quite short). However, as your history gets longer it becomes very difficult for people to find old messages. An archive makes it much easier. Removing messages can also give the impression (often correctly) that the user is trying to hide things; in my experience the controversial users who get into trouble are often those who remove messages off talk pages. I'm not saying you are doing it for that reason, but it's best to set a good example :) Petros471 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mines45

I don't know if you recall, but Mines45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was temporarily blocked by you for repeatedly editing in a controversial fashion without using edit summaries or talk pages. Since returning from being blocked, he/she has continued to make controversial edits, still without discussion. His/her behaviour is essentially unchanged. McPhail 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned again, not much hope that it will have any affect but lets see... Petros471 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to report that Mines45 is still persistently editing the pages in question. McPhail 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can probably guess I'm getting a bit fed up of this. I did get another 1 line email from him, which was less obscene than the last one, but didn't make much sense. Could you have another go at engaging him in discussion, if that doesn't work then maybe have a go at a WP:RFC. Petros471 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly try. Given that Mines45 has yet to make a single discussion page posting or use a single edit summary, however, I would suggest that such attempts are doomed to failure. I've already requested an investigation, and my attempts (and those of others) to communicate with Mines45 were simply removed from his or her discussion page [2]. Quite frankly, I think that the repeated edits in the face of opposition, coupled with the personal attacks that you yourself have received, is more than enough cause for a permanent block. While I'm sure that you are "a bit fed up" with Mines45, I and other editors have been reverting his or her edits on a regular basis for over two months now, and the action taken by the administrators of Wikipedia with regards to the situation has been disappointing. McPhail 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you slightly misinterpreted my 'fed up' comment. I didn't mean I was just doing to totally walk away from the situation, just that it is time to take it to the next step of WP:DR, and yes that should come from those who are having the dispute not from some admin who doesn't really have a clue about the articles in question and if the edits to them are 'good' or 'bad' (yeh that'd be me). We've tried the first step (talking), mediation won't work if he's not willing to talk, so the next step is WP:RFC. The suggestion to 'have another go' is to prove that everything possible has been tried before the RFC. Petros471 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vimes RfA

Petros, I refer to your oppose vote and your RfA criteria. From the criteria, you say that "I will not vote on an RfA unless I feel I know enough about the candidate to make an informed decision.", which seems to slightly contradict from your vote which implies that you have no knowledge of the proponent, but nevertheless have chosen to oppose. As someone who has dealt with Sam frequently over many months and over lots of issues and articles, I can only say that from my point of view, Sam is one of the best Wikipedian's I have come across in my time here. As Blnguyen said in his vote: "He is a very humble and gracious person, and I am 100% confident that he will warning vandals appropriately. Furthermore, I do not see how not doing so is an abuse of tools." I'd concur with that sentiment entirely. His failure on this RfA would be a travesty. Can I ask you to re-read some of the affirmations in the support votes. If you need any more information or wish to discuss, please message me. Please note that I don't mean to badger you - I came here only because you seemed to indicate a willingness to reconsider your vote given some more information. Hopefully I've done that in a small way. Regards -- I@n ≡ talk 07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the very next sentence in my criteria does say "This does not necessarily mean I have to have come across them before; as there are edit histories, talk pages etc.", which I think covers your first point.

However, as it turns out I've just been reviewing the new comments posted since yesterday when you sent your message, and yes I am willing to reconsider given more information. I would like it if you could point out any specific conversations on talk pages or contributions to Wikipedia namespace pages that show 'good admin behaviour'. Petros471 08:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros, its difficult to show 'good admin behaviour' when he isn't one, but I think I know what you mean, so here goes: courtiousness:[3], administration:[4] technical knowledge (templates):[5] consultation:[6] willingness to concede gratiously:[7] involvement in something other than cricket:[8] standards development:[9] afd:[10] cfd:[11] -- I@n ≡ talk 08:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that difficult to show how you'd behave as an admin, but it does require a bit more involvement in the admin type pages (mostly in the Wikipedia: namespace). I'm sorry to disappoint you, but on thorough review (I have gone through a lot of Sam's contributions, not just the ones you pointed out), I have decided to keep my oppose in place. Petros471 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/Cumbria Lancashire Education Online

I will contact them. Being based in Lancashire, I can do any Lancashire-based WP:ABUSE reports. --Sunholm(talk) 19:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was originally hoping to have a go at contacting, but I think that's just one thing to many for my to-do list! Good luck with it. Cheers, Petros471 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User:Petros471/RfA reviews/CTSWyneken

Not sure if you've noticed that page, it's where I've been working on your contribs review. Basically it seems like opposition to your last RFA was in two parts- you the editor and you the admin.

As an editor you have a pretty narrow editing focus, and some people think you POV push. I haven't studied everything, but a quick glance seems to suggest your edits are pretty sound. I guess when editing articles like that, people who disagree with you (and vice versa) are often going to have problems... I'm not sure there is much I can specifically recommend here, apart from maybe try and have a hand at editing some articles in different areas. Personally, I have very little problem with people who's article contributions focus on one area (as they can be experts in that specific area). However, it does seem like other users place quite a lot of weight on this, so it is helpful to be able to point to other articles you have helped. Also to prevent accusations of POV pushing I'm sure you are aware that you should always maintain the very highest standards of WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV etc...

As an admin (and by that I mean potential admin, an editor who does admin type things), you basically need more experience. Go continue being more involved in things like xFD, reverting/warning/reporting vandals (all three parts important), discussions on WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA etc. Also an easy one to get bonus points- please make sure you always use good edit summaries. Your usage isn't too bad, but no harm aiming for 100%! Petros471 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like I've read the criticisms quite well. In recent months I've voted in a few more RfAs, became a part of the welcoming committee, added a number of chronically vandalized pages to my watchlist, tried a wider variety of articles (French Canadian explorers, Fort Wayne High Schools...) and added to WP:RS, with a current discussion ongoing. I hope to get a wider discussion on what kinds of facts need to be cited in an article. Our standard, not always enforced, is stricter than the academic one.

I have had clashes with SlimVirgin, mostly over the area of Luther and the Jews. It comes about because I am a Lutheran pastor and she is concerned that no one forget the holocaust. It tends towards heated exchanges. This has settled a bit. Off of this topic, we seem to be able to work together.

User Doright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the other hand, has a chronic habit of personally attacking everyone who disagrees with him. He even once attacked Musical Linguist and Humus Sapiens! If you'd like, I could provide diffs. Ignoring him hasn't solved the problem.

So, I've started to address him directly. I told him that if he would stop attacking people, we could get along. If he tried to be better at correctly citing his sources, we might even be able to work together.

Since then, just a few days ago, he has attacked me twice (and spoke nicely about my work once) I've put a {{npa}} and a {{npa2}} on his talk page. Two more and I'll seek admin intervention.

Anyway, if you could advise how you would view what I see as personal attacks in the above, I could use and outside perspective.

Thanks again! Bob --CTSWyneken 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought I'd replied to this one... I certainly thought about the reply at least ;-)

Ok, that seems to cover most of it. Now, to answer your question about Doright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I have to admit on first glace (and I haven't looked in detail), they are not the worst personal attacks I've come across. Yes, they are less than WP:CIVIL and I can understand why some of those diffs you pointed out on Doright's talk page annoyed you (having your integrity attacked is not nice). However, it might be better to try and stick to arguing the issues rather than the personal attacks. If Doright does make personal attacks you can report them to WP:PAIN to allow admins to give warnings as appropriate, which might have more weight coming from an independent admin rather than you as the subject of the attacks.

Another thing that I might as well point out now, that if you become an admin you should never protect and article that you are heavily involved with (other than sprotect for obvious, totally blatant vandalism). Full protection is usually used for content disputes, and the admin protecting shouldn't be involved in the dispute. As you've contributed heavily to certain articles, it would be easy to argue you are involved in anything that happens on those pages, and therefore any protections you make on those would be subject to controversy. If you promised to stick to this (and of course stick to your promise) then this might help resolve one of the RFA concerns of you wanting to be an admin to help 'get your way' in content issues. Petros471 11:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stop editing The Portsmouth Grammar School

Please stop editing that now. You've just done a copy and paste page move and if you continue you'll make it harder for me to clean up afterwards. I'll explain more later. Petros471 16:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please don't do copy and paste page moves. It is important that the page history is kept intact which is why there is a 'move' tab, which moves the page history allong with the article. Just check with this and if you still think the page should be moved then feel free to go ahead, but actually move it rather than copy it ok? Don't worry about it I'm used to fixing these now, just now you know for future reference... Petros471 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. I understand now, I thought it might be a bit iffy with the page history. I have read the guidelines about the definite article at the start of a title, however I think that the definite article should go here, because the school's actual name is The Portsmouth Grammar School rather than Portsmouth Grammar School and this is what is used by the school. So can I try moving it properly? Benjaminstewart05 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can give it a go, you're probably right about the title (I only history merged into the old one because it was easier, as that's where the majority of edits sat). They didn't used to let non-admins move pages 'over' ones that already had content there, but I think you can move then over pages with just a re-direct. If you can't let me know and I'll move it. Cheers, Petros471 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. Thank you for your help! Benjaminstewart05 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a history merge on the talk page as well. All fixed now :) Petros471 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Today

Hello, I have contacted User:Reaverdrop about this issue as well. It pertains to the article Universe Today en the sockpuppets of User:UniverseToday. The article was editted again by another possible sock and is now up for AfD again. Your attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thanks,--Kalsermar 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol's user page

Hi Petros. Could you unprotect my user page? I'd generally prefer to have it unlocked. My talk page was unprotected earlier today and the vandals haven't returned so far, so I think its safe to do the same to the user page.

Thanks, Gwernol 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unprotecting it. I agree about the talk page. I would only rarely want either page protected for exactly the reason you mention, and this will be doubly true once I get the admin bit. I'll take a look at the email this evening as I can't get to the account this is linked to from work. Thanks, Gwernol 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

evil questions!

I'm a bit silly at times, though I mean no harm. :) Kim Bruning 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was a dangerous trap, of course. I think he's managed to escape, though no-one was enlightened.

This might be part of a better answer: WikiWikiWeb:ThreeLevelsOfAudience. Kim Bruning 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]