User talk:Peter/Archive10

''Re: Your WP:RFI report- I have warned, however I should probably note that the edits to the talk page don't count as vandalism. They could be seen as disruption though, just be careful not to blanket remove all comments from WIN- make sure that the comments add nothing to discussion about the article. Petros471 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)''


 * Even after you kindly warned him that Wikipedia is not a place for debate and original research, he continues to leave long diatribes at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration. This is getting very tiring, I'd like to concentrate on other editing tasks instead of constantly having to revert his disruptions. Please consider further action against him. One look at his contribs should convince you he hasn't made a productive edit in months (if ever). CRCulver 06:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given final warning. Petros471 09:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even after you have given a final warning, he's just left an angry message on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration railing against mainstream scholars and bring up his own research. (I reverted.) CRCulver 07:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just blocked for 24 hours. Petros471 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 81.19.57.170
Hi. Could you let me have a bit more background on your decision not to block this user. From your edit comment, I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that you're saying that as long as they are making valid edits to some articles, that vandalism of others is OK, which I'm sure isn't what you meant. If blocking is not the appropriate route to deal with this kind of editor, your advice on what we can do instead would be appreciated (bearing in mind that they have so far not responded to multiple invitations to discuss their edits). Many thanks SP-KP 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AIV diff



.


 * Thanks - no problem, no great rush, at least two editors are keeping an eye on this IP's edits. SP-KP 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was edits like this  that made me think 'this is not simple vandalism'. Some of the other edits like , at a quick glance didn't look like vandalism either. On closer look I can see how they can be seen as unhelpful edits, but blocks in response to AIV reports are usually only for clear, obvious, 'right now' vandalism.


 * As to how to deal with editors like this... It can be tricky, and the response depends on the balance of good, bad and indifferent edits. If there are a significant number of good edits, might be best just to keep a good eye on the contribs and revert the bad ones. If you find yourself continually reverting the same bad ones then a block for disruption might be in order. That may or may not have the effect of getting them to discuss things. Petros471 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the reply. Could you take a look at the recent edit history for Cypripedium calceolus? There, this user has made the same edit multiple times, and not responded to the invitation on the talk page to discuss. What do you reckon - does this merit a block for disruption? SP-KP 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Warned. I'll block if they do that edit again. Petros471 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX


I warned for removing previous warnings off his talk page. 71.124.114.26 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * has continually mass reinserted old comments and invalid warnings on my user talk page. He spammed my user talk page with old comments and invalid and irrelevant warnings AFTER the final warnings and in the process, 71.124.114.26 has clearly broken the 3RR. 's talk page was protected because he kept blanking his own user talk page and broke the 3RR leading to it being protected. When warned about it, 71.124.114.26 made personal attacks towards myself and other editors. Now he has broke the 3RR AGAIN on my user talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless either of you can enlighten me otherwise, I can't see any recent vandalism to articles from either of you. The issue seems to be you giving each other warnings, then removing them and giving each other more for removing the warnings. I suggest both of you just stop it, and then I won't have to block either of you... I'll remove any warnings not given for article vandalism, and just check out if any new ones are valid. Petros471 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism, 71.124.114.26 has blanked other editor's comments on Talk:Bruce Lee, and made personal attacks towards myself and other editors. 71.124.114.26 has also repeatedly spammed my user talk page AFTER final warnings leading him to break the 3RR for the second time.

has broken the 3RR twice on both his own user talk page and my user talk page. I filed a report for each 3RR violation here but nobody responded to either of them yet. I posted more details there. Could you take a look at them? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I could, but if I find you're the only person doing the other half of the reverting I'd have to block you for the same amount of time. Do you still want me to go ahead and investigate the 3RR report? Petros471 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, because if you look at the page history, you would see that has clearly broken the 3RR twice. 71.124.114.26 has started a revert war on both his and my talkpage and has clearly violated the 3RR. However, I haven't broken the 3RR on either his talk page or my talk page. --RevolverOcelotX 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that 71.124.114.26 has broken the 3RR. However, I have decided not to block either of you for now, as the edit warring has been over your talk pages only and you have both been disruptive. If either of you continue this disruptive behaviour I will block whoever starts it again. Petros471 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * RevolverOcelotX does this sort of thing constantly. He gets into revert wars with users, then sends out rapid fire templates on 3RR and vandalism and starts revert warring over the messages; that or he refactors or deletes discussion on user talk or article talk pages then revert wars and reports 3RR.  He basically baits people with inflammatory messages (no real discussion, no compromise, just attacks) and then sits back and makes reports on them to get them blocked and out of the way of his versions.  The latest example can be found if you glance through this user's history.  He sent out templates, reverted the user's reversion of the templates, then reported him for 3RR.  Sometimes he uses WP:AIV instead, even though it clearly isn't simple vandalism.  YINever 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Doright's Behavior Here Out of Line?
Would you take a look at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and advise if this post is out of line? If so, how would you advise I proceed? --CTSWyneken 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By 'this post' I'm assuming you mean the "Email list archives" one. Yes, that looks like it is crossing the line, at least the WP:CIVIL one, if not quite WP:NPA. I guess after seeing many, many, extreme violations of WP:NPA (example) I've become less sensitive to the slightly gentler violations. What I'd do in that situation though is not to focus on the attack part of the post, i.e. ignore the attack completely, and just reply to the conent issue (but don't simply ignore the post completely). In that case Doright quoted "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise..." but if you read on it says "...so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." So basically if the information is only available in it's original from as published by the researcher, you're probably right that it shouldn't go in the article. My point there isn't the actual issue, it's how you deal with it. Always give thoughtful replies, backed up by policy where needed (and remembering guidelines aren't quite as strict as policy, so make sure you know which it is). Getting into arguments about who is doing what wrong is rarely helpful (like the classic case sitting on my talk page at the moment of two people giving each other warnings about removing warnings, neither had actually committed any 'real' vandalism...)


 * Also as I think I mentioned before, if you think Doright is persistently being unreasonable, and you and others have tried to resolve this, a WP:RFC might be useful. Petros471 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Very good advice. The irony is I actually agree with Doright that it should be OK to quote this mailing list. (It is moderated, sponsored by one of the oldest online association of scholars and every list is moderated by a scholar vetted by the organization). SlimVirgin had questioned the validity of this as a source earlier, Doright reacted as if I were trying to supress it. I worked with three or four editors at WP:RS to craft a paragraph that said, in essence, what you said. There were some cautions other users wished to add, so I added them. After waiting a day or two after the last comment, I posted it to the page. Doright immediately changed it to a paragraph that gave an all clear to anything on H-Net, without discussion. After exchanging a few reverts, noticing no one seemed to care, I modified Doright's version to include the cautions and it all seemed to settle... until Slim came and moved it off the page to the talk page, insisting that mailing lists not be used at all, since they were self-published. That was when I put the note on the "On the Jews" page. My attempt was to get the guideline some attention. Which it did. So what is my thanks?


 * Could you provide me a few diffs to the kinds of personal attacks you would respond to as an admin with a warning and then a block? --CTSWyneken 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  What you're expecting to be thanked for contributing your time for free, helping build a free encyclopedia for the benefit of the world? :O Yeah, it can be tough. I'm not sure exactly what to suggest. It seems like a lot of the problems aren't helped by there being so few of you editing this area. It's a controversial topic, but without having a large number of editors involved, it is hard for real consensus to build up if one or two of you disagree.


 * Looking back at my block log and searching for 'personal attacks' as the reason, I came up with some examples:     . As you can tell it didn't take too much effort to work out that most of those were totally unacceptable without a second glace. Some that were a closer call can be seen on User talk:Andrew Homer, especially the section "Request for comment" onwards. Petros471 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 Hello Peter, CTSWyneken has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. The irony is it might be possible to work with this guy, if he'd not stamp his feet every time he doesn't get his way.

I'll try next to go to semi-ignore mode.

I appreciate the links. Since I'm trying to develop into an admin, it would be good to discover where to set my threshhold. --CTSWyneken 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this salvo, in which my intergity is questioned and my

reply? --CTS Wyneken 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Petros471 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! SlimVirgin has intervened, so action is not likely needed. I would appreciate your evaluation of my response, for self-improvement purposes, but it can wait. --CTS Wyneken 13:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this one: article talk pages are for discussing the article, so messages addressed to a person should usually go on their talk page. In this edit I see you put "Still waiting for Doright's explanation of his POV Flag" as a heading. A better heading would have been the more neutral "POV Tag" with the message saying something along the lines of a tag should only be added with a reason given on the talk page, it will be removed if one isn't provided- or something like that. The point is to always try and discuss the editing issues, not the users involved. On the other hand comments by Doright like "CTSWyneken, by "status", do you mean employment? As in, when you explained in On the Jews and Their Lies (on 04:01, 14 June 2006 UTC) that your full time paid "position" within the Lutheran Church included writing Wikipedia articles related to Martin Luther?--Doright 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)" are totally against what I just said, so yes, I think they were out of order. Petros471 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ice Hockey
I'm afraid that the ice hockey project are resorting to personal attacks and trying to ram raid a decision to keep all youth teams with their own page. Where's the sense in that sort of decision? They have provided NO evidence that these teams have any notability (beyons they are the biggest youth team in a town with a population of 100,000!!!). This is totally illogical. They are working against the basic principles of WP and are acting VERY unencyclopedically. What do you suggest? Robertsteadman 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure it's reached the level of personal attacks yet. To try getting other 'outside' opinions in, you could try an article WP:RFC or a third opinion request. As to them acting against the principles of Wikipedia, well that's debatable (both ways). If their information is verifiable and not original research then it can still be argued both ways about whether or not it falls under WP:NOT. Your opinion on the matter is one way, theirs is the other. Petros471 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Petros, I'm almost sorry you've gotten involved in this mess, but I do appreciate that you have come in to offer a neutral opinion on the matter. I am certantly willing to reiterate my/our arguments surrounding the notability of these teams if you or any other admins have concerns, if it will help end this debate. However, regarding the merge proposal specifically, I have suggested that I will remove the merge tags on Thunder Bay Northern Hawks tonight if no other users express concerns with this action. I did wish to make sure that you voiced your opinion on this decision before I do so, and I hope that Dmighton and myself were able to address your concerns that led you to support a merge:. As the two articles we pointed out show, there is verifiable information available that allows us to build these pages into quality articles. All we ask is that we be given the time to do so. Resolute 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but I've said all I want for now. I still think merging is a good idea, but it's not that big a deal. Petros471 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do wish you'd drop in again as the 3 or 4 supporting maintaining youth teams being notable are trying to railroad their view by closing the merge disciussion. I think, as there is no obvious concensus, that an RFC should happen. What do you think? Robertsteadman 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how a discussion of this nature can be 'closed'. The merge tag can be removed I suppose, but not the discussion if it's ongoing. If you go ahead with an RFC just let other editors responding to that add their views and see what happens. Petros471 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning 147.10.134.148
''I blocked as it was a continuation of edits made yesterday, clearly the same person. BV is a suitable final warning. Petros471 12:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)''


 * I think that the frequency of the vandalism didn't merit a block right now (and I wouldn't have started with a BV from the beginning, as I think the edits pointed to a, let's say childish mind anyway); they lose patience rather quickly, and IMHO and from my experiences herearound, sometimes even just reverting them should be enough with 1 or 2 warnings intermixed. I won't contest your block, mind. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar 12:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I sometimes think blocking is more of an art than a science. The bv (not placed by me) was the second warning, but like you said maybe using a few more of the test series might have been better. Petros471 12:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Glen Chapple
I noticed you reverted on Glen Chapple, rolling back 's edits, and then left a warning on their talk page and blocked them (but they were in violation of NPA, so fair enough). However, as far as I can tell, the information reverted at was accurate ( confirms at least part of it), reasonably balanced, and not obvious vandalism. I'm just curious as to why rollback was used, when it comes down to it. --Sam Pointon 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was puzzled when I saw this, as I don't remember that article at all... On digging I see I saw this edit (as part my usual pattern of checking recent edits with 'rollback' showing next to them after I've blocked someone), which resulted in a red link. The block had nothing to do with those edits (it was for the personal attacks). I think I then assumed (wrongly) that the only edits the IP had done to the article was that sort of change. I see I was totally wrong, and of course should have checked. Feel free to revert me/add whatever information is relevant, I had no indention of substantially changing that article. Petros471 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck
Hello. I am just posting to say good luck to you in the upcoming Esperanza elections, and I shall enjoy campaigning against you - you are a worthy opponent, as it were! All the best, and may the best man/woman/thing win! King fish erswift  16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Wikismile
Hey, thanks for that! :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking a mediator
Hiya, there's an (informal) mediation going on, that's in need of a mediator. There's no connection with DG, this is something completely different. I trust you though, and wanted to see if you'd be interested in helping out. Think you'd like to give it a go? --Elonka 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to know someone trusts me :) I can have a go, unless you've already got someone (like ^demon above?), though I still can't claim to be an expert at it! Petros471 08:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah no, the Demon one is a "formal" mediation, relating to how to format articles about the TV show "Lost" (That one is actually my first participation in a formal mediation, so I'm looking forward to observing the process). There's another informal one though in the "Mediation Cabal" category, which means that it's more of an informal chat where various unofficial parties/mediators are welcome to come in and participate.  It had been going on for a couple weeks but seemed to have kind of stalled recently, and the starting mediator was busy with other projects and hadn't been able to participate.  However, just as I was writing this message to you, the mediator did surface and post a lengthy report, which I'm very glad of!  So, if you'd like to pop in and offer an opinion, you're still welcome, or you can monitor, or not, as you like. The page is  here, though most of the discussion is actually at the associated talk page. I realize that there's a lot there (including an archive page, this has been dragging on so long), so you might just want to review the last few days' of posting, or, check the first paragraph of each major section for a quick overview.  Up to you! :) --Elonka 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll probably leave that one then- as it's so long, it would be much better for the person already familiar with the situation to continue. I've got plenty of other things to be doing instead :) Petros471 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: AFD closing
Yeah, I was trying to finish 6/21 up. I think we were working from opposite ends, I noticed you'd closed one I was about to get to. Anyway, there are only 2 left now... wasn't planning on moving to 6/22 till tonight if then. --W.marsh 18:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Mistaken revert?
''Did you mean to do this? Petros471 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)''


 * No I didn't mean to do that, oops. Extremely sorry. Benjamin stewart05 -) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We all do that sometimes... Petros471 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not having the most accurate day today, I am being a bit dosey. Benjamin stewart05 -) 20:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

JMW814
i dont know if my last question showed up, so ill put it twice. thanks for helping me put userboxes on my page. i tried organizing them (unsuccessfully, as you can see on my page) by topic. how do i organize my userboxes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMW814 (talk • contribs).


 * Your last post can be found in my archive (my talk page gets pretty busy, so things get moved off the main one into my archives for future reference). I managed to get the headings to clear the userboxes using - (a template, which I subst:). If you want a fancier layout your best bet is running across someone with a userpage like you want and either copying the code or asking them how they did it. Oh, and please remember to sign your talk page posts by typing ~ or by clicking the signature button above the edit window. Cheers, Petros471 20:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrackspurt
Hi yeah I did merge Wrackspurt to Minor Harry Potter beasts however I think someone else then deleted the entry, I have re added it and left a comment in the edit summary that it is the result of an AfD. Death Eater Dan ( Muahaha ) 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the smile, Petros471! It really brightened my day. :) -- Nataly a 11:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

DJ Batwave


I have disturbing comments on my talk page from a certain User:DJ BatWave. I am deeply offended. I don't think this is allowed on Wikipedia. WillC 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it off your talk page, and warned DJ Batwave. You're quite right, that sort of thing is not allowed on Wikipedia. He'll be blocked if he does it again. Petros471 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Tip for AfD Merge Closings
Probably want to use afd-mergeto, not the vanilla one. &mdash; Mike &bull; 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Yesterday I closed loads of afd's as merge, and after seeing a few of them changed like you have I got the message ;) Petros471 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And just to prove no-one reads big boxes on the top of talk pages I replied here... Petros471 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick Favor -- Speedy-Delete and Page Move?
Hey, since you might still be online, quick favor of you. Can you assist me with this and this? I was tidying up some spacing and bad numbering on some nominations that ended up confusing the process, and just need someone to clear out the "correct spacing, second nom" entry so that I can move the "bad spacing, second nom" entry into its place. &mdash; Mike &bull; 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and all the redirects are fixed, so the ones that are currently pointing to the "correct spacing, second nom" entry do not need to be fixed or anything like that -- they should be pointing to the entry that will be moved (by you or another admin) into that place shortly. &mdash; Mike &bull; 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just been cleaning up after Cicero Dog (blocked again, had to revert his stuff, delete that orange order thing and then post on ANI- all in a days work :) I have to say I'm slighly confused... I deleted the two pages you linked to above, is there anything I need to do? Petros471 16:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mix-up ... and I've doing some tidying on my own. A few more, if you're good ... can you zap this orphaned talk page and this remnant?  I think my janitorial cleanup is done with if those two ones are done.  [I think. ;-)]  If you need me to explain anything, let me know what you're confused about and I'm happy to explain. &mdash; Mike &bull; 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, and much appreciated &mdash; but somehow this orphan's still around from that last deletion you just did. I think once that's gone, the project's finis. &mdash; Mike &bull; 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to explain, basically, someone rather quickly prepped the first lightsaber combat AfD (i) without documenting it was a second nom and (ii) calling its page lightsabercombat, no space. Because of this, when I did the third nom, I called it a second nom (because I wasn't aware of the first) and did similar spacing.  I think the article's very WP:NOR-ish and WP:V problematic, and I could see it going up for future noms if it survives the current third nom.  In such a case, I wanted to clear up right now how many previous noms it had and the correct spacing of the article -- thus the janitorial job.  I really appreciate all the help &mdash; at times like this, oh, for lack of a deletion button on my page! :-) &mdash; Mike &bull; 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting that last orphan, man. Appreciate it!  Something about getting a little bit of a confusing mess cleaned up that leaves you with a good feeling. :) &mdash; Mike &bull; 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well actually I think someone else got it first, but I was going to delete it ;) Glad that's all sorted out. Petros471 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Techno Source
Hi. I noticed you're "at work" so wondered if you could take a look at Techno Source for me? I've been watching it since it was created and am unsure whether it's an advert that's a bit more subtle and Wikipedia-aware than the usual gumpf. I'm not really experienced enough to decide. I've been assuming good faith, but the number of fiddly little edits by the same editor are just making me more and more suspicious. Grateful for an opinion. --Dweller 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does look suspiciously like and advert. WP:AFD would be the way to go, as a PROD is going to be contested by the author and speedy doesn't apply. You want me to do the listing or will you? Petros471 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice / support. I'll do it. Let me know if I get it wrong. --Dweller 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping. --Dweller 16:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks fine. Cheers, Petros471 16:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for the revert on my userpage. :) And best of luck in the elections! Regards --  Bane s  16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry to hear that. :( Hopefully the election will go better, and I'm tending to think it will. --  Bane s  16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

UneXpect article
Just a question about my speedily deleted Unexpect (band) article. How is every other article about every other band on Wikipedia emphasising their notability in music? If every band were unique, you'd only have a couple bands on here! And that's even more ironic, since uneXpect are unique in their amalgamation of extremely different types of music, so, that makes them more than eligible. They are also eligible due to their having toured the US and Canada (as specified by Wiki rules for a band to be valid for wikipedia). Could you kindly help as to how I can re-introduce this article? I do believe I emphasised their uniqueness and importance, and really cannot understand why it was deleted. KidAnomaly 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As you claim notability I've restored Unexpect. It can still be taken to articles for deletion. Take a look at Notability (music). If you can identify from that why the band is notable I'll happily leave the article alone, otherwise I may put it up on AFD. That page will also hopefully give an idea as to why other band pages are allowed to stay. Hope that helps, Petros471 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding! :) As regards notability, I'd say Unexpect qualify due to the following:

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. - UneXpect have toured the US and Canada, reported on their website as well as the record label (The End Records)' website

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." One EP on Galy Records, One Album on The End Records (coming in August)

I hope that helps clarify! Thank you! KidAnomaly 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced that the examples you raise fully meet those points, however I'm not going to pursue it any further (i.e. I won't nominate it for deletion, of course someone else might still do so). Petros471 08:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding KidAnomaly 13:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your request
I put the old link in discussion. A Return to Love the previously removed page

Sorry about that. Ste4k 18:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like this is being dealt with by another admin/afd. Petros471 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nateirma
User:Nateirma, who you blocked a couple days ago, keeps blanking his talk page, removing the warnings. Could his talk page be protected? -- Jeff3000 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, because to protect the talk page would mean no-one except admins could post messages there. So unless another block is due for vandalism (removing warnings on it's own isn't really vandalism) then I can't protect. Just assume the messages have been read and post future warnings on that basis. Petros471 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please block
Look at this, and please could you block the user responsible. He obviously has nothing useful to contribute. Benjamin stewart05 -) 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry someone else got there first! Benjamin stewart05 -) 20:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DJ BatWave
I just noticed this user moved their user and talk pages to User:Cowboy From Hell and User talk:Cowboy From Hell, and doesn't appear to have gotten a username change. I don't know their history, you may wish to rexamine their actions if they are attempting a psuedo-username change. Kevin_b_er 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted those pages, and told to stop. It's not the first time he's tried the same thing, next time probably should be final warning and then a block after that. Petros471 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Deskana RFI
Was nothing done? It seems to have disappeared. Is it OK for admin's to have rude and insulting pictures on their user pages that suggest that don;t care about what others think? Robertsteadman 06:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Deskana was made aware the some people had problems with that version of his userpage. As I said, I don't think it was appropriate, so no I don't think it was ok. However, I'm not sure any more can be done, as that userpage has long since been changed. The report is in the archives. Petros471 09:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - thanks. Couldn't find the archive. Personally I'd have stripped him of his adminship - a pity you feel nothing more can be done. Robertsteadman 10:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How...
How do I file an RFC? I've read the page and I can't work it out. It's for the Thunder Bay Northern Hawks and the other youth teams that are clogging up WP. The hockey guys keep trying to stifle debate and have even been removing the merge tags to prtend that debate is finished and so I think it is time to open this up to the wider community. Robertsteadman 14:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Added to Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Article RFCs are pretty simple, just a request for others to take a look at and comment on a particular article issue. It's the user RFCs that can get complicated, but that's not what's needed here. Petros471 16:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Robertsteadman
''If you have enough evidence that this is a sock account, you should file a checkuser request. Otherwise, you'll have to believe Neuropean that only one account is being used, and treat him/her accordingly. Petros471 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * What about the other behaviour? The persdonal attack tags, etc?Robertsteadman 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Already warned for that. Petros471 18:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again a shame it is only a warning - this is repeat behaviour from the sock account. This editor is an internet stalker and is only on WP to cause trouble. I will search through for some evidence of sockpuppetry. Robertsteadman 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be careful not to make allegations like "an internet stalker" without evidence. I've been warning Neuropean to deal with this in the right way, the same also applies to you. Calling someone a stalker could be seen as a personal attack. Petros471 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is he was warned yesterday by user: Weregerbil (it's hidden in his user taslk history because he keeps deleting stuff he doesn;t like rather than archiving) and then made more similar personal attacks. Now you have warned him - how many warnings does one person need when it comes to such poor behaviour? Robertsteadman 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry missecd this one - also since his warning of yesterday - it's not like it's been a long time and he's forgotten he shouldn;t be doing this.... Robertsteadman 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Neuropean
''Please do not make edits like these. They can be considered personal attacks. If you wish to report Robertsteadman as a sockpuppet I suggest you bring it up on WP:ANI. Also it is not a good idea to clear things off your talk page without archiving. It makes it look like you have things to hide. Petros471 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * I am allowed to delete whatever I want - it's in the history, it's not been wiped. I will remove all the tags as soon as you stop accusing me of sockpuppetry.  Every day you are giving me more and more encouragement to get past my laziness and to start the mother of all referrals: civility, personal attacks, spamming, making a point etc.  The thing is, once I start it, I have no doubt that it will be quickly added to by a large number of other editors concerned with your attitude.  I just don't get how you can get away with calling me a  sockpuppet, yet not one administrator has warned you, but I make links to your confirmed sockpuppetry and nothing happens.  If i cared enough, I'd be annoyed.Neuropean 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there is still some discussion ongoing about if and when warnings can be removed. It has been my experience that users who remove things off talk pages tend to be the controversial ones who either have received legitimate warnings and want to hide them, or deal badly with criticism meaning situations escalate unnecessarily. I don't think I've ever accused you of sockpuppetry (and if you were talking to Robertsteadman please use his talk page to do so rather than mine). I'm rather inclined to believe that you are using just this account, but has previously used another one (like you said on the RFI). That is no reason to repeatedly post in the way you did about Robertsteadman. As I said, if you want something done about him you'll have to try WP:ANI. Petros471 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your warnings, I am amazed that you failed to see the reason for my links. Why am I getting a warning but the consistently disruptive Robertsteadman gets none? I'll ignore the warning, thank you very much, until I see that you are acting in an impartial way.Neuropean 19:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the reason for the links is you accusing Robertsteadman of using sockpuppets. Well, as I said before you need to raise that in the appropriate way. Posting links like you did all over the place could be seen as harassment. If you want to point out any violations of policy that Robertsteadman has done (with diffs) then I'd be happy to warn him for those. Petros471 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How about these for a start: (Taken from User:Weregerbil's talk page

I believe you warned Neuropean not to do this sort of thing yesterday [8 - sadly, as you can see, he is continuing today. What do you suggest? It is very hard to AGF when someone (a clear sock) is virtually stalking me on here. Robertsteadman 11:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC) I invited people to take part in a debate on a subject that they had previosuly shown interest. I gave no indictaion of the result I wanted, mere;y that their view would be welcomed. Please look at Neuropean 's contributions. He is a sockpuppet and is out to make apoint. He nominated in bad faith and is upset because things aren't going his way. Robertsteadman 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTCNeuropean 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Response to User: CmdrClow
''A quick look at the most recent contributions by seems to suggest correct signing of talk page comments. The warnings are in place on the usertalk page as well, so I won't take any specific action at this point in time. Might be better if you report any future vandalism (if any) to allow an admin to post the warnings (normally you'd be encouraged to post them yourself, but in this case they will probably cause more trouble). Providing diffs from the edit histories will help with that. Petros471 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Those events transpired almost a week ago, and have sense not become a problem. CmdrClow was not signing on the Superman Returns page, and when I asked him to sign his comments (on that Talk page) he would remove what I posted. So, I warned him of deleting other user's comments, especially warnings. He proceeded to remove that, and if you look at the history his personal talk page you will see everything that transpired. He attempted to justify his actions by claiming they were a "personal attack" and so he could remove them. If you look at his history further you will see this isn't the first time that these events have taken place with him and other users. But, since he has kept the most recent warnings up, and has controlled him/herself from deleting portions of comments by others I don't see why there should be any further act on this user (as you pointed out). Thank you for responding though. Bignole 18:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Robsteadman
''Well, might as well try and sort this one out. Even though the report was made in the wrong way...''

''Are you ? If you are, can you explain why you are using this account to avoid a block? If not, can you explain the similar username? Petros471 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Yes I am the same person -however it was agreed that this was ok - there was a lot of strange things going on with the old account, impersonator accounts user: RobSteadman, accusations of sockpuppets which I have NEVER used, stalkers from other websites (www.tes.co.uk/staffroom) who established accounts on here to have a go ( user: Bakewell Tart andUser:Crusading composer (do have a word with user:Musical Linguist for further info (though she maintains I used socks when I didn't (sometimes WP can be wrong - one supposed sock turned out to be one of my A-level students editing to support me! - yes I am a teacher), User:Crusading composer later became user:Count Of The Saxon Shore) in order to try to disguise his actions and stalking... etc!  You probably should take a look at this and have a word with user:Syrthiss. Several other admions know that I am using a new username (including user:Deskana who can verify the Syrthiss thing even though we are arch enemies!! Other problems arise because of the article Robert Steadman which is about me (and the thing that alerted me to WP in the first place) but, despite some claims was not written by me (this is one of the occasions when WP found things out and was wrong). For what it's worth I believe that our freind is linked VERY CLOSELY to AT LEAST one of the stalkers listed above. I'm sure this just sopunds confusing, particularly if you know none of the history, but I am, and always have been a valid editor trying to improve WPO - sadly others have done their best to get in the way. Robertsteadman 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, User:Syrthiss/Robertsteadman looks pretty clear, and I assume other admins agree to the principle. After all, you're visible enough that I would have thought someone familiar with your past one would have blocked by now otherwise. As you can tell I'm not familiar with the past situation and stalking problems, and from your above description it looks more like something you need the arbcom to handle, or at very least a wide audience of admins on WP:ANI (i.e. basically not just me and/or a couple of other admins). Petros471 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - sorry you had to be involved. I've been trying to quietly make edits and be useful to WP - sadly the stalker (in all incarnations) plus some of the boys from the ice hockey wikiproject have decided to "have a go" for different reasons at the same time - the result was the cat AfD (which was only ever a bad faith nomination with the purpose of causing trouble) and variouys people having their time wasted. I am collecting all info about the stalking and wioll, if need be, pass it to the police. It did has involved REAL LIFE things too.


 * Thanks for your help. Robertsteadman 20:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see just how far that would get you. I defy you to present just one example of anything edited by me that could be construed in any way as a personal attack.  Have we ever met?  Have we ever exchanged any correspondence other than arguments on the internet.  So just how does this involve 'real life'?  I would love to see the publicity.Neuropean


 * Could you please place messages directed to other editors on their talk page. Or in this case, email would probably be a better venue as further discussion along this conversation line is almost certainly going to fall foul of WP:NLT or some other policy if kept on-site. Thank you. Petros471 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The life of an admin :) Ok, just be careful though if you are doing anything with the police not to fall foul of WP:NLT which is enforced very strictly, and sometimes without warning. Basically if you are going to be making complains about someone in real life, keep it off wiki. Hope things clear up for you, and that you can still make useful, good contributions to Wikipedia! Petros471 20:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not make your threats against other users on WP. If you are having a conflict not related to the project, please keep it outside. DS 18:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...further vandalism by user:Neuropean
user:Neuropean's latest vandalismis here. Robertsteadman 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the most helpful of edits. I suggest the two of you avoid removing and/or editing each others comments in any way. If personal attacks need to be removed let that be done by a third party. Petros471 21:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My Email not Enabled
''Any particular reason you don't have email enabled? Petros471 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * No reason, I guess I just haven't got round to it. I prefer to keep all Wikipedia related messages on my talk page. Why would someone want to email me instead of leaving a message on my talk page?-- Andeh 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Well I was going to ask you how long you thought it would be before you'd be ready for a RFA (I'm getting fed up of seeing you posting to AIV without being able to actually do any blocking ;). I know you said not that long ago in an oppose for another RFA that you didn't think you'd be ready, so I was curious as to how long you thought it would be till you would be. As having email enabled is a requirement for being an admin, I was checking. Even as a non-admin sometimes people want to contact you about stuff privately. Petros471 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, cool. :) Yeh, I do report quite a few at AIV. Nice of you to offer, and you promptly block the vandals I report. To be honest, I don't quite feel confident enough for admin just yet, maybe in a few months though. If I enable email is it viewable to everyone? too lazy to search :) -- Andeh 20:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. No, your email is only shown when you email others (i.e. if you sent someone an email from Wikipedia, or if you reply to an email sent to you through Wikipedia.) It's hidden from public view by a webform (just click on my email link to see what it looks like.) That gives you the option to ignore any spam (I've not received any yet) and/or hate mail (yep, had some of that!) without revealing your address. Petros471 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Enabled. Now if I start receiving hundreds of emails from Wiki users I'm going to blame you, haha! But seriously what's stopping someone from abusing the system? I mean a spammer with a wiki account could just use it to spam you. Thanks.-- Andeh 20:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing I guess. As I said though, I've never received any actual spam (only the odd nasty one from someone I've threatened to block, but those are the minority, most are "why did you delete x" or "please unblock y" type). If it does become a problem you can always use your email client/provider to block a particular email address and/or set up a filter for the username (it's tagged with the address). Petros471 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I trust ya on this one! Could you send me a test email then?-- Andeh 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent a test one to you just now.-- Andeh 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Received it!-- Andeh 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Recieved reply!-- Andeh 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Email Scenario
Hmm, I told you I didn't feel confident enough to be admin yet, but hey I'll give it a shot!

Well first I'd check the blocked users contributions for any edits that might relate to vandalism. Then I'd check the admins block log for any recent blocks similar to the username which has been blocked by the admin and any recent reversions of articles the admin has made.

Do I pass?-- Andeh 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, obviously check the contribs. Hopefully the block log will say who the user is a suspected sock of (so you can compare), if not like you say check the blocking admin's contribs/block log at around the same time to see. I ask that one because I have had a few people email me for real with similar situation. Obviously common sense is needed when deciding what to do... It is quite common in situations when a batch of socks are being blocked at once for an innocent new account to be blocked at the same time by mistake along with the load of real socks. I've made that mistake myself (AFAIK only once!), so it does crop up. Petros471 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS> You should have got a reply to your test one as well, making 2 from me. Petros471 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)'
 * So did I answer correctly? I thought most long-term vandal/socks just assigned themselves a new IP then created new accounts as asking an admin for an unblock takes longer and won't always work.-- Andeh 21:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, correct enough. When I ask those sort of things I'm not looking for a 'model answer', just that you've got a bit of sense and don't say anything too stupid. You didn't! You're probably right, which is why the couple I've received are probably legitimate (i.e. mistakenly blocked people). One of them turned out to be a uni prof who then did a few minor (but good) edits to maths articles. Petros471 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I need a neutral opinion
Hey, could I have a third opinion on the Cheating in Counter-Strike link spam discussion. See my talk page and the talk page of the anon. Basically I feel the link isn't useful and is commercial, the other user feels some parts of the website is used as a reference and is useful, but I don't know what. I'm trying to remove at least SOME links from the article as there's plenty already. Cheers.

I feel my case is pretty strong and the user may be from the large forums of the website. But that would be assuming bad faith!-- Andeh 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That article looks pretty bad for link spam, so you're quite right to try and clear some out. Sometimes it's easier to clear the lot and just add a couple of links to a directory (like dmoz) and any official sites. What particular link is the dispute over- your latest revert covered a few? Petros471 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's the link msxsecurity.com where users buy cheats for games, I mean, what the heck!? Commercial link!-- Andeh 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure looks that way, and can't see anything useful to the casual reader (like me), so removed. Petros471 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you leave a note on the anons talk page that we've decided on it with a quick overview of why it isn't appropriate. Just to (hopefully) end this discussion.-- Andeh 21:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, and no need to fix the header- I changed it as it's a new topic. Good luck with sorting out the rest of the links! Petros471 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon IP has continued the discussion (as I suspected), they've decided to continue it on the talk page of the article over here.-- Andeh 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Heat wave
There's currently a Heat wave in the UK, so sleeping is near impossible.-- Andeh 11:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:HOTR
''I'm a bit puzzled- you seem to have a deleted talk page, with no links to archives. Is this correct, and if so why? Petros471 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * My page was vandalised. That's why. Homey 13:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for sorting it out now. Petros471 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/UPA
Could you please add the results, if you've recieved them? If you haven't then please remind the judge(s) in question who have not sent you their result. This round is taking a lot of time! I was hoping to start the new round by the 10th, but now I don't think that's possible.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh this round is taking it's time! We're down to one judge to send in scores, I've sent another reminder. Cheers, Petros471 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

81.19.57.170
Hi. This IP is vandalising Cypripedium calceolus again. Any ideas? SP-KP 19:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked again, along with a note about discussing edits. Hopefully that will have some effect. Petros471 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC
If you do it my way, you download a decent browser, then click on the relavent link on IRC channels and follow a few simple steps to set up a chat account. Incidentally, the user involved ('Cousin') has just logged off. Let me know if you need a bit more help (though I'm no IRC expert!). Petros471 21:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright; thanks. It doesn't seem to be working in Firefox for me (although I don't want to denounce Firefox). I'll go use Opera. joturn e r 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my
''See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. It could be true. Might not be, but we're not going to treat that user as a vandal at the moment. Petros471 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Hmm, I did act a bit hastely (that a word?) there, it seemed odd that someone made a user called Sad News then started leaving lots of talking messages on users talk pages informing of a users death.-- Andeh 22:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also reverted several of their most recent edits.-- Andeh 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know if I believe it or not. There is evidence both ways. Looks like Where has blocked that user though, and an IP troll has appeared. Seems a bit fishy, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Petros471 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OH, ok, that's made me feel better I guess. Possibly very sinister vandalism, I mean.. I wouldn't expect someones relative to go around many other users talk pages and say so and so died.-- Andeh 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh, don't feel bad about it. I think the talk is mostly along the lines of wait and see if HRE returns to editing or not. If it is a troll 'joke' then I think HRE is going to be *very* careful about his password in future (as we should all be!) If it is true then obviously it's very sad. I think it is quite possible that a user might request a note about their imminent death be posted, but yeh going around lots of talk pages I'm not sure... Petros471 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

82.203.3.9
Fairly certain. Only repeat in the contribs is English national football team and given that this is World Cup Season, most UK IPs are going to touch something football related. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. :) Yeah it's one of those educated guesses. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So. I was wrong. :) Win some, lose some. --Woohookitty(meow) 13:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ESP/UPA
''I've emailed them to you so you can do your spamming. Thanks for signing up to do that! Cheers, Petros471 10:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Hi Petros! I just wondered... Did you forget to post the scores at WP:ESP/UPA? It's probably the job of the overseer to announce scores and the winner, and I can't spam around if you haven't done that yet...  fetofs  Hello! 12:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No I didn't forget, I thought you'd better have them first. If you want I can post them now. Petros471 12:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. While you post them, I'll start the spamming.  fetofs  Hello! 12:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put the results on the main page, and given Fir0002 the award, so you just need to do the runner up template spamming. Thanks, Petros471 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A last question: What is the second parameter in the template? It seems pretty redundant.  fetofs  Hello! 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like 1 is username, 2 is link to winning userpage (the perminant link) and 3 is your 4~ sig so it shows up inside the template. Might be wrong though, I didn't make it! Petros471 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

User WIN again
After you've unblocked him, he's now putting long diatribes on Talk pages again full of conspiracy theories, see Talk:Aryan invasion theory. CRCulver 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also see the comments by user:Lord Loxley at . Perhaps I'm overly suspicious, but... --Dweller 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My points or Noble/Eagle's points who writes against above persons' POV, it's deleted and rationalization is allowed for this AIT theory. They are writing their POV but ours are deleted by them saying diatribes. It's clear negation of valid points. WIN 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, my internet access is limited at the moment. Petros471 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the diff here to see WIN's additions to the Talk page. He blatantly says that no references are required, and admits that he's trying to argue whether the theory is right or wrong, not about how to best make the article reflect current scholarship. It's the same old thing he's always been doing here, and it's getting tiring. CRCulver 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have said that Ref. for well known thing is not required.So, you are quoting me with half-truth. Saraswati river point is known to all persons knowing this theory and it's relations with ancient India ( including you ). Everybody knows that Indian astronomy,Ayurveda, Yoga etc. said knowledge streams' terms are only in Sanskrit.If you ask Ref. for this then it will be similar to asking a Ref. for Shaksepere wrote in English and not in Spanish - a well known point. For IVC dental point, I have cited the link. So same way why Peru point which is just POV ( written by supporter but without any Ref.) is not deleted ? It shows clear negation of any valid point in this matter. WIN 09:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if more than one person is disputing something, I would certainly say that a reference is needed. You say 'everyone knows', well I for one don't. As I know practically nothing about the disputed subject matter I can't comment on how valid it may be without reliable third party references. See WP:V and WP:OR. Petros471 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not only a problem of lacking references, it's a problem of the entire purpose of his editing. He doesn't want the article to be well-written and reflective of scholarly opinion. He just wants the article taken down because he doesn't like what most scholars think about the history of India. Even if he brought up references, his goal would not be to make the article well-balanced, it would be to badger us on the Talk page and call everyone wrong. He simply doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia at all. We're not a place for debate and original research. CRCulver 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Petros, I had added Ref. but then also they are deleting from talk pages.My goal is to make this article well balanced which is totally controry to CRCulver's claims. They don't want to appear any opposing points in logical manner.They are writing on talk page their POV without any Ref. but they are deleting my points ( which are opposers' points ) from talk pages. They have habit of deleting any well Ref. points from article which clearly don't match with AIT/AMT or they will present it as per their supporting POV. Peru point in talk page of Aryan Migration is just POV by supporter without any Ref. so why they are not deleting it ? Becuase it supports their POV. First of all AMT is just theory which supporters are trying to prove as fact overlooking or negating opposing views. Today,this theory is finding more western opposers than before due to newer findings, in-depth understanding of the full matter then also supporters are trying to prove this as sort of real history. They are don't know IA languages or something in depth Indian historical point which I write and they will say this as non-relevant matter by simply negating because it is not suiting their POV. I only say that Opposing Views should be given fair chance of writing along with Supporting Views then only reader will get latest in-depth points to read. WIN 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple look at WIN's contribs will show that he has never linked to respectable sources. We've gotten a few links to amateur websites, but never any products of scholarship (whether pro- or anti-IMT) and his mention of such things was never to make the article better, but to call us folks on the Talk page racists. CRCulver 11:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Coming to express gratitude: I stole your list idea from Gwernol's RfA nomination and have already used it twice. Works very well. Thanks! - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ok :) I saw you using them and thought that imitation is the best form of flattery! It's all in the quality of the people you find to nominate as though, and you seem to have done a good job with that. Petros471 20:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask your opinion of this?
User talk:Mantanmoreland --CTS Wyneken (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC time? If you have several editors with complaints over repeated incidents of behaviour RFC is probably the place to bring it. You may also receive outside view responses with varying degrees of moderation, you can probably see from those if you're doing the right thing as well. Petros471 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:-)

 * That`s odd looks huge on my screen.-- Andeh 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
''Your admin coaching entry is still listed as pending- and your coaches seem to be away (one on break, other retired). Do you still want admin coaching, and if so do you want to be assigned new coaches, or just one new one to replace Mailer diablo? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Sure, I'll have new ones. Terence Ong and Johann Wolfgang are the preferred users. If this is possible, I'll inform them. Thanks!-- Tdxi an  g  11:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Terence Ong has a declaired retired notice, and I don't think Johann Wolfgang is signed up as a coach, however you are very welcome to ask him if would like to! Petros471 11:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, still interested SP-KP 12:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From Ilyanep
Sure. I won't be able to do anything till Monday though. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes
''You are signed up for admin coaching, and you are finally near the top of the list! I just wanted to check that you still wanted admin coaching. Please let me know on my talk page. Cheeres, Petros471 11:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * Hi Petros471 - yes thanks, I would like to receive coaching. Please let me know when I'm up for it. This Fire Burns.....Always   16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now :) Your coaches are Blnguyen and Ilyanep. I suggest introducing yourself to them, letting them know what sort of things you're hoping to get out of the coaching and any questions you have etc. It's also a good idea to set up a user subpage to keep all admin coaching stuff together. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm ready. Not sure if the coaches were assigned randomly or not, but I think you made a good assignment. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi - I'm sorry but I have to withdraw from admin coaching at this time. Please remove my name from the list. Thanks, This Fire Burns.....Always   14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to here that. I'm adding my to-do note to remind me to update the coaching list:

Petros471 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Petros. Yes I am fine again. Managed to write Boy Charlton and David Theile and hopefully I finish off the redlinks in Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming in the next day or do. Hopefully, image deletion procedure becomes a core facet of all training programs. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a member of Esperanza anymore, but I'm free if anybody wants to have a chat with me or coaching in an unoffical sense. If that is OK just email me Petros. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FayssalF/Szvest
''Are you ready to take on a new trainee, as your current one (Youremyjuliet) doesn't seem very active at the moment? Please reply on my talk page. Cheers, Petros471 11:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * Thanks for the notice Petros. I've had a look again at the request list and found Richard as a good trainee for me. We do speak 3 languages in common and i also checked his contribs and found them interesting and somehow similar to my orientation. Cheers -- Szvest 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
 * I normally assign coaches to people who've been waiting the longest (and are still active). However, if you particularly want to coach Richard that is fine, but you might not have a second coach for a while. That ok? Petros471 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine w/ me. Thanks. I've already notified Richard anyway. -- Szvest 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Feezo
Ah, I'd forgotten I signed up for that &mdash; thanks for asking! I will still be interested when I'm able to regularly contribute again. In the meantime, happy coaching! Fe e zo (Talk) 07:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

zappa
I'm still very interested in AC, I've created a page at User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching. Thanks, zappa.jak e (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mirlen
Hi, sorry I haven't replied for a long time &mdash; my wikibreak became longer than usual &mdash; had to take care of my other life :P. Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm going to lay off of the admin coaching for awhile &mdash; not to mention my turn in line should be forfeited (or is it already) because I've made you wait for an answer for so long. It's partly due to my lack of wikienergy-inspiration, so thanks for being patient and my apologies for making you wait so long. — Mir  l   e   n   20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Master of Puppets
(I'm not sure this is in the right section, but I didn't want to clutter your page) Thanks for notifying me! I signed up and am ready to learn. :) Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab!  21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I believe myself to be fairly lucky... I got 2 coaches who I happen to be friends with. Cool. I made a page (with a very original title) for the coaching, and notified my coaches, too. Cheers, Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab!  22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Overseer for WP:ESP/UPA
I hadn't thought about that, I was just suggesting that the round should be opened, but then, I think you're doing okay as overseer. I'll just sign up as spammer and/or judge. -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91(esperanza elections!) 10:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be most happy to be overseer for the next round. :) Thank you very much for your vote in the EA elections by the way. All the best --  Bane s  09:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

GwernolBot
''I would like to know if you are a real human or an automated bot. Dark thief of 7 feet 19:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * If you're a bot Gwernol, I'd love to meet your programmer ;) Petros471 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's the cool part: I'm entirely self-programmed :-) Thanks for the kind words about the admin work I've done so far. Its been largely as I expected and yes, I'm enjoying it. Best, Gwernol 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your urgent move on those two vandals. Llort and I spent over 20 minutes cleaning up their mess. Kedi the tramp 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Commenting out relists?
''I saw this message- when I've relisted I've removed it from the old log page and copied it on the new. Should I be commenting it out instead of removing it completely? Petros471 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * It actually doesn't matter, since the net result is the same, though I believe that commenting out is better: Commenting out the link rather than deleting it completely simply leaves it in the original daily log page with a record of the new log page after relisting. If you've been deleting the link rather than commenting it out, that's probably fine, but I'm just doing what I think is better (and what a couple of old AfD veterans used to do). --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer
''First off congrats on your new adminship (see this for the only reason why you didn't see my support on it). Now that you have your new tools do you need your RFI on User:Tyrenius/Satchel Cohen hoaxer investigated? Petros471 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Thanks for congrats on my RfA. I often don't participate for the same reason! Re. the hoaxes, JzG zapped everything, and I didn't realise it was still on RFI. I've removed it. Thanks. Tyrenius 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A thank you
Hey Petros471, thanks so much for your support in the Esperanza Elections! I really appreciate, and look forward to helping to keep Esperanza running. -- Nataly a 01:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost randomly queried (Re:Category:Internal link templates)
Hi! I was checking out the following cat and noticed several AFd logs on the page plus a few Afd independent articles. You seem to have closed out Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 19, and thus the psuedo random query. The Category:Internal_link_templates has these pages listed prominently at column right side. I suspect a template got broken, or was broken when something was subst'd or the like. Since most of the Afd dates are fairly to very recent, I thought I ought to bring it to someone's attention. They are after all, not templates!  // Fra nkB 11:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I eventually found the offending template, once I did that I added the missing nowiki tags, which seemed to clear out those afd pages. Petros471 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good work! Sounds like a rough one. I figured it was something like that... but I have no idea what 'processing' you guys add to lock down and close Afd, Tfd, and Cfd matters.


 * I just lost about half-a-dozen (call it six hours work) interlinked and related edits, most nearly done. All because of a Thunderstorm causing a momentary power outage... I couldn't back down the chain of edits fast enough. So my day was worse. Nannny-nnannny-boo-hoo!  Cheers! Take 430 points for Griffindor or 215 Atta-Boyz as you prefer. I'm sure someone will appreciate it if it 'tis only I! I'd give you a Barnstar but I haven't seen that guideline anywhere as to how to do so! Best regards, // Fra nkB  21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, not too rough- took a bit of time, but quite fun doing a bit of detective work (I ended up taking one of the page, doing copy into a text editor, search for the cat (no link) then search for "{{" to find transclusions, and took it from there.) Sorry to hear you loosing work- never had storm problems, but my internet connection can get very dodgy at times! Oh and three awards in one evening might make me too big headed, but so you know for future reference see Awards for an overview of the options (including barnstars). Petros471 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work!


''Thanks! I can't claim it was the hardest thing I've ever done on Wikipedia (helping re-design and then acting on reports at WP:RFI takes up much more of my time), but still nice to see someone appreciated it :) Petros471 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)''

''Thanks! It look me a little while to find out what the psi meant (apart from the Greek letter), but it was worth it :) Let me know if you need any other assistance. Petros471 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * It was on one of the awards pages, it seemed to suit you so why not?-- Andeh 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stressful
''Really? I find it's the opposite- if I've got loads of stuff sitting on my talk page it probably means I've got loads to do (as I try not to archive things that still need my attention)! Petros471 18:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * Yes tis very stressful! Because I have to remember which is the 30th topic and then try to catch it in the mess of code on my talk, while I select it all. Scrolling through often flies past the topic I was looking for, and, and, oh! It's too much! :'( --  Bane s  18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I find it easier to start selecting from the last post I'm archiving, then drag up towards the top, so there's less chance of overshooting, and it's easier to see when I need to stop. You can also use shift+keyboard arrows to select which gives more control. I don't bother doing it by number of topics, I generally archive either when I'm getting page to large warning, at the middle and end of month, when I feel like it, or when I've dealt with everything on the page, whichever one comes first! Petros471 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Going upwards is actually a very good idea. :) I have to archive at 30 though, since I am decidedly picky...Thanks for the help! --  Bane s  21:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm e-mailing the final results to you right?


 * Glad I could be of some help :) Userpage scores: no, I didn’t think so... Not unless I sign up as spammer. People will be emailing you the scores, and then you can either announce them or pass the results on to the spammer to do so (the last two rounds I've generally announced them but made sure the spammer is around at the same time). Make sense? Petros471 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes that sounds right. I'll try to remember. :P By the way, you ever considered making the "471" in your sig link to your usertalk? --  Bane s  22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but decided against it at the time. I also considered making my whole sig just link to talk page and/or add a simple (talk) link after my username but never really got round to it. As you can probably tell I'm a fan of simple signatures that take up a minimum of the edit window/diff screen, though a talk link won't stop that too much. Petros471 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Userpage coding?
The awards on your userpage are supposed to be visible, aren't they? All I see (Opera 8.45) is a small gray &lt;div&gt;box saying "Awards". Femto 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to click on the 'show' link on the right hand side of the grey bar. Once you click on that it shows them, however it's a bit buggy so doesn't always work first time, and layout of awards is a mess once you can see them- basically that section needs fixing up. Petros471 21:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That explains it: no JavaScript for me. (that is, I didn't even know there's a foldout link) (The price to pay for being paranoid, huh?) I hear V9 will allow individual settings for each site. Femto 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're only semi-paranoid like me, you can go to the javascript options (Preferences>Advanced>Content>Javascript options) and stop if from doing a lot of things- I have JS enabled, but almost every box there unticked). Yeah, it does have site specific prefs, I haven't used them yet though (but if you did only want some sites to have JS enabled I think you can do that in 9). Petros471 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and thanks for being interested in my page! Petros471 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, pure self-protection. :-) Femto 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :) Though I don't think I'll change the link in content to yours unless your page changes! Petros471 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh number two: Opera 9 is out, and is pretty good. Unless you like widgets it isn't a massive upgrade but still worth doing. Petros471 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On principle, I don't bother with x.00 versions, I'll wait for at least 9.03 to try it. Hey, don't push me with new versions, I'm still running Win98SE. :-o Femto 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough I actually found 9 TP2 to be more stable than 9.0 (1 crash in latter vs. 0 in former so hardly a big sample), but yeah I'm sure there are a few bug fixing releases in the works. Ok, I won't :) Petros471 21:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The page shen ryong is completely fictional and so cannot be accused of being anything but especially not being unimportant,your descision is of no relevance whatever you should reconsider such an action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma chao (talk • contribs)
 * I deleted Shen Ryong as it met our criteria for speedy deletion (more than one of them: no context and no assersion of notability are two). Petros471 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading the guidelines on speedy deletion I noticed that fictional stubs are not in anyway in a breach of wikipedian conduct,in addition the page had not been finished as it was deleted whilst being further editing therefore the deletion of said topic has no grounds on which a deletion is necessary.I am right of course in believing that fictional pages are allowed on this site as long as they are within the rules am I not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma chao (talk • contribs)
 * The deletion was not because the article was about a fictional subject. It was deleted because the article provide no context as to why the subject of the article was notable. If want to work on the article without it being deleted you can do so in your userspace- just create User:Ma chao/Shen Ryong. When the article is ready to be moved the the article space, use the 'move' tab. Petros471 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

thankyou for clearing the matter up,I was in the process of finishing the article before deletion so am i right in believing it is because I had taken to long to write it?Anyway I appreciate the way it has been handled so thankyou for being patient through my misunderstanding.User:Ma chao 12:48, 14 july 2006

Concerning
See WP:LTA for more information about this particular entity. --EngineerScotty 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Looks like Essjay has just extended block, which is fine. Petros471 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Block
From pgk to Chris: ''You unblocked this user to reblock, then blocked admin User:Petros471 with summary "Possible General Tojo sock, only vandalism from this user", I assume this was a mistake and you intended to block User:Prof Johnson? I've unblocked User:Petros471 and blocked User:Prof Johnson. Hope this is ok. --pgk( talk ) 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)''
 * D'oh!. Yes, thanks for fixing that. -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for my mistaken block, I wanted to block User:Prof Johnson indef as a General Tojo sockpuppet, and have clicked on the wrong username. Luckily, User:Pgk caught my mistake and fixed it. Sorry for the confusion! -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say I was at first confused by your message (as I just thought you were trying to tell me you'd extended one of my blocks (which was fine). Now I've read the above it all makes sense! Wow, my first block... Pitty I didn't get to see the block message to get the full experience (no I don't want to try it out just for that ;) Cheers, Petros471 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Move tag"
Just to let you know for future reference- when moving pages (in your case to revert vandalism) please use the 'move' tag to preserve the page history, rather than simply copy+pasting the content. You can then tag the resulting redirect page for speedy deletion. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that existed - thanks for telling me. 0L1 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Petros471 19:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during July 14 2006 (UTC) to GraalOnline
There is no consensus at all about the criticism section, this section has been written by a very few players that have been banned from the game and want to make trouble. This section don't give sources neither is verifiable and most information are completly false. Part is defamatory against the manager of the game, Stephane Portha and should not be allowed on wikipedia. Bingolice 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential admin Guinnog
''Just to drop by to give my reply to your message on Gwernol's talk page (I nominated Gwernol, so I keep an eye out on these sort of things ;-) ). 1) Don't worry at all about not using edit summaries when you first arrived. You do now, and that's what counts. 2) Have you fully apologised to the user involved? If so, noting that you made such a comment and now regret it should be fine. Petros471 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * I've just tracked back and found the user and apologised. I've felt bad about that ever since I said it, but never had the courage to say sorry before. It was my first few days here and he was a bit rude to me but I should never have been so personally insulting to him. Pah. --Guinnog 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, we all make mistakes at times. Regreting them and being willing to fix/try not to repeat them is what matters. Petros471 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I suppose that, yes, I'd love to be an admin. There are three possible areas where I think I might come in for criticism;


 * My advocacy of a more balanced POV in the 7 World Trade Center article; I don't think I ever breached policy but I know I must have rubbed a few well-meaning admins up the wrong way. I came close to edit-warring over the inclusion of an NPOV tag in the article at one point. On the other hand, I was later able to work with User:MONGO on raising an article to FA status; he was one of the admins I crossed swords with there.
 * My ongoing dialogue about the merit of delinking years. I almost always do this as part of the copyediting process on every article I edit, and I know it has been a controversial area. I've (partially) supported User:Bobblewik over the issue (he is currently serving a block). I would of course be open to discussion of the policy on this, which to my mind is hopelessly ambiguous at present (see my user page for a link). The funny thing is, only I think two people have ever complained about my removals of these low-value links. In both cases I've been able to engage productively with the user, so I've never got into the trouble that Bobblewik has.
 * (Less so) I spent a lot of time in debate with editors on the Superpower article and its "daughter" articles. I don't think I ever particularly lost my cool with anyone there, and I just don't edit there any more. Basically, my issue is that beyond a short, almost dicdef article, I don't think any of these articles (India as an emerging Superpower, etc) can ever be more than OR.


 * Anyway, although I'm reasonably happy with how I've handled these things, I fear that I might be a controversial candidate on RfA. I'll see what else I can come up with, but I think that's probably the worst of it. Thanks again for your very flattering opinion. --Guinnog 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)