Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:40, 22 May 2007

"You can’t build a reputation on what you’re going to do." Where this user currently is, the time is 04:58, Sunday 12 January 2025. This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight".

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Deletion of Webisode I & II (Sanctuary)

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

Good evening (GMT time); thanks for getting in contact:

Reason for deletion

• The article is non-notable, per CSD A7;
• ...in that, there are no sources cited.

Evidence of notability

• References/citations - see WP:CITE for details.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the lack of sources, the synopsis was written based on the actual episode and I linked to both the transcript and the copy of the episode on YouTube which can serve as references for that. (Note that the YouTube version was provided for promotional purposes, it's not the primary distribution channel.) The cast and crew list came from the credits provided with the purchased episode, they are not freely available online and cannot be linked to directly. However, I did add a link to the episode's IMDB enty, which includes some of the information. The episode is also listed on TV.com. I could have also linked to the official site. Regarding it being "unremarkable" per CSD A7, I disagree for the reasons I outlined in my comment on my talk page because it's created by, and stars, very notable cast and crew.

Evidence of Notability

Per the criteria in Notability (web), unfortunately #3 doesn't apply like it does to other TV series because they have chosen to market direct to the customer (i.e. like selling wholesale, instead of retail), and #2 doesn't apply because I don't know of any award. However, for #1, there are several independent reviews of the series and episode including:

• Sanctuary - Webisode I — An Uncle Sam Review
• A New TV Reality? Sanctuary Webisodes Online
• Sanctuary Webisodes Premiere Online
• And a whole lot more...

Lachlan Hunt 22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No - none of these are reasons for undeletion; please see WP:CSD for the Speedy Deletion criteria ... I think you have the wrong idea about what is and what is not grounds for immediate deletion ~ Anthøny 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response seems to be entirely subjective. I tried to address the specific criteria objectively, but you have not explained how or why any of my references do not satisfy the criteria. It would really help if you could explain, in clear and concise English, exactly what I would have to provide to satisfy that criteria? Lachlan Hunt 23:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What can I say - a YouTube video and a transcript on a fan site doesn't qualify as a reliable source; I think you need to visit both this policy page and this guideline page, and have a good read, before creating articles in the future. Finally, a reliable source is identified by these criteria ~ Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're questioning now. Is it the accuracy of the content or the notability of the show?

Accuracy

My source was reliable. It was written from the actual episode, just like the synopsis for an episode of any other TV series. The YouTube video and Transcript were not the only source. As I said in a previous comment, I could have linked to the official site where you or anyone else is welcome to go buy a copy of the actual episode and verify it for yourself. (No-one said sources have to be free!)

Notability

To show whether the episode is notable enough, I have to show the notability of the series itself, which is what I've tried to do. I'm not sure what else I could say beyond what has already been said. You've clearly made up you're mind already and have no interest in listening, so there's probably a little point continuing this discussion. I will admit, however, that Sanctuary is new, and is technically yet to really prove successful in the industry. If that's what you're real problem is, fair enough. I'll probably come back when Sanctuary is a little more mainstream and its notability a little less questionable. Lachlan Hunt 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

So for Sanctuary to be considered notable, it has to be reviewed in more widely known and respected publication. Would you consider the recently published GateWorld article to be an example of a reliable source? GateWorld is one of the most reliable sources for information related to Stargate. Lachlan Hunt 18:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not dodging the question here; I think you have to make that call for yourself: how is it possible to be a successful Wikipedian if you are not acquainted with WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:N? Have you ever read them? Anthøny 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep pointing out exactly the same set of guidelines, and I read them the first time. BTW, have you read WP:JNN? Effectively, all you have done is say my sources aren't notable, despite my repeated attempts to get you to explain why you believe they are not notable. That's why I asked if you would consider GateWorld to be notable enough.

Anyway, I'm happy to leave it a month or two and come back to get the articles undeleted when the shows popularity and notability have increased. In the mean time, I'll get them published on the official sanctuary fans website instead. Lachlan Hunt 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; thank you for getting in touch ~ Anthøny 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:flphoto

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

Good evening (GMT time); could be back up here a second - you've moved from talking about a TfD to an unlicensed image ... are you requesting my help in an image matter, but saying that you came across me at the TfD, or requesting my reviewing of the TfD and my assistance regarding the image, or have you used the term image instead of template, or what?

Please clarify - I'm anxious to help you out, but I'm a little confused :P I'll post this to your talk page to make sure you see this.

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid response. I see why my lack of information confused you. Here is the image in question: Image:C801561.jpg. The deletion of the template caused license problems with this image (and most likely dozens or hundreds of other images). I am be leaving home immediately, so don't expect a rapid reply. I temporarily put your talk page on my watchlist, so let's keep the thread here. Cheers! Royalbroil 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, thanks for watchlisting the talk page—many users (including me) don't use watchlists, so I employ the primitive method of posting nudges at their talk page to notify them of a reply here ... the fact I don't have to do that in this instance is a relief ;-) well, I'm not really sure what exactly I can do: the template was deleted per community consensus, and there's nothing I can do about that (although you can list it at WP:DRV if you wish); with regards to image licensing, if an image lacks a suitable license (see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights) then it will be deleted, so if you've uploaded it without a license in the first place then I must say I have no sympathy. Another question: how can the deletion of a template affect a license - again, your input is requested; cheers ~ Anthøny 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My question is not about reasoning behind the deletion,, as I in fact !voted for its deletion. My problem is with the consequences of the deletion. To quote the discussion: "If the result of this discussion is delete, we will only delete the tag after the images have been dealt with; that's how TFD works. Pagrashtak" There are approximately 250 images that used the template as justification for their licensing. See here. Most of these images now have no license information. Every one of these images need to be reviewed to see if they should be deleted. Many of the images were taken before 1923, and would be PD in the U.S. I tagged some of the images with dual license (flphoto and a PD in U.S. tag) before the flphoto license was deleted. About a year ago the Florida Photographic Collection was actually ENCOURAGED as a source for free images. Obviously that has changed. I want to avoid getting 50 image deletion warnings on my talk page (since I uploaded around 50 of these images). By the way, I just added your talk page to my watchlist in my last post. Thank you. Royalbroil 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for accidentally restoring this thread in your header. I did not have bad intentions. Royalbroil 03:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the accidental adding to the wrong page—that's no problem - I used to had a message hidden in <!-- arrows --> but I removed it, so I suppose it was partly due to my neglect ... anyway, no harm done whatsoever. Now, the template has been recreated so I'm willing to leave it recreated until the review of each image has been done, etc...; go ahead, and drop me a note when it's done and I'll redelete the page.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Has someone been assigned to review the images? What criteria (besides determining if the image was taken before 1923 and thus in public domain) should be used to decide if the images should be kept? Might the images be considered to be under fair use? I am far from an image expert, but I know someone in Misplaced Pages who is an expert who most likely would be willing to take on this task. Cheers! Royalbroil 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Catch up

Hello again! I had a mess about a week ago with the cloak request system and have since cleared out a lot of broken requests (broken due to me, rather than the applicants). This means that your request was probably removed. I tried to send a memo to everyone that needed to resubmit, but unless you missed that I clearly didn't hit everyone, so sorry about that. Please redo your request from the top and then I can set your cloak. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 17:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for getting in touch ;-) regards ~ Anthøny 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hi there; a question. In the case of a user such as User:70.189.149.118, whom you just blocked for one day for vandalism (which clearly had been committed by this IP address), if a warning is given and no further vandalism then takes place, as is the case here, is a block appropriate? I normally wait to see if further vandalism occurs after the final warning, as otherwise the wording of the final warning makes no sense.--Anthony.bradbury 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the disruption by the IP, I took a decision to remove its editing privileges for a short time; my original intent was to remove the block in around an hour.

Regards,
Anthøny 19:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your call.--Anthony.bradbury 20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am AGK on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/AGK.

Cheers,
Anthøny 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Tell you what: you work from top left of the page, and I will work from bottom right.--Anthony.bradbury 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do ~ Anthøny 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pending mediation

Per your request, I have tried to discontinue the discussion regarding Stephen Barrett, but Ronz keeps pestering me on my talk page. I have asked him politely several times to refrain. He has ignored my requests. In turn, I have reported him on AN/I. I am hoping that this will end his harrassment, but I would appreciate any help which you can provide here. Is there anything within your capacity as mediator you can do? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- Levine2112 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess Levine2112 is trying to change the scope of the mediation to include the issue of how many books Barrett has written, as well as the behavioral issues that MaxPont clearly violated in the subsequent discussions: WP:POINT, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:HARRASS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. I had hoped that Levine2112 would make some sort of stand against such violations, considering he's often so very quick to claim harassment, hostility, and incivility in others. I don't know what to make of the situation other than there's a double-standard here. --Ronz 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be frank here: the attitude between you two parties (as well as a number of the others with one another) and the relationship between you is completely inappropiate for a Mediation case. Mediation depends completely on a civility and willingness to discuss with one another between the parties, and this is completely absent from this dispute ~ Anthøny 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that Levine2112 is a disruptive editor, prone to assuming bad faith and ignoring policy when it suits his needs. Despite this, I went into your mediation by putting it aside, hoping that the formal mediation would force him to be civil and cooperative. From the mediation so far, I don't think he's capable of being cooperative when it comes to topics related to Barrett.

I'm also concerned, given Levine2112's habit of assuming bad faith of others to make his points, that he either doesn't understand WP:AGF or is incapable of it in the context of Barrett. If this is the case, then we're all wasting our time with these mediation attempts. --Ronz 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One bit of advice: don't go throwing accusations of bad faith on behalf of other editors ~ Anthøny 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, I am happy that you recognize the bad faith accusations by Ronz. I, as I have mentioned numerous times, believe mediation can and will help. I think under your supervision, all parties will be forced to stay on point and - more important - act civilly. I regret that Ronz thinks I am being a "disruptive editor" in terms of Stephen Barrett (even though I haven't edited persay on that article for quite some time). I have only been involved in discussion. Further, let me make it clear that I have never tried to change the scope of the mediation to include how many books Barrett has written. This, like many of Ronz's accusations, is a total fabrication. My point - my only point - during the ongoing debate about Barrett's authorship is that Ronz seems to be inconsistently applying Misplaced Pages policy (WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:WEIGHT) with that case as opposed to the board certification case. I am sorry for mentioning this because instead of discussing policy with me, Ronz launched into an attack on my character. I would have preferred a civil discussion. Again, I am prepared to admit that my interpretation of policy is wrong. I am also completely open to compromise. I hope that Ronz feels the same way. I am anxious to re-start our mediation and have some resolve with this matter. In case mediation proves not to be successful, I have listed our case with ArbCom. I know they have a huge caseload, and I want to be on their decks early. Regardless, I have high hopes for mediation. Thanks, Anthony. -- Levine2112 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew - I fully agree with you; Ronz is acting in bad faith, banding accusations about willy-nilly with no backing nor grounds for doing so. Ronz: this is getting beyond the ignorable stage; if you proceed with disrupting the encyclopedia, as well as what is undoubtedly going out of your way, I will have to take further action, as well as post to WP:ANI to request the backing of my fellow Administrators. Andrew: unfortunately when parties such as this are involved in Mediation, it is both fruitless and pointless, and therefore I see no point in proceeding; one further point: I've retired from the Mediation Cabal, and have taken up membership with the Mediation Committee, so a MedCabal case would not be able to be handled by myself.

Levine and Ronz: hopefully you will take these points on board, and I appreciate your input in this matter; however, I believe Mediation would be unproductive, and I would not be willing to serve as the Mediator in this particular case after observing the action that has taken place before the main issues are even approached (i.e., Mediation has started).

Kindest regards,
Anthøny 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Nomination

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member!

On behalf of the mediation Committee, ^demon 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an honour to serve Misplaced Pages in this role; my thanks for everybody's input ~ Anthøny 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

If you have a mo, pop by my sandbox and feel free to edit it. --Dweller 14:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Anthøny 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TT's RfA

I've completed it. Waiting acceptance. Then either you or TRM can transclude with pleasure. --Dweller 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done—Anthøny 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail

email, that is.

The Transhumanist    18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)