User talk:Anthony cfc/key/Unresolved

Heh, your userspace looks significantly nicer than mine now. It's no problem, thanks for taking the time to look around. —Xyrael / 14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea - do you know how the page title would have looked in those archives? eg, RfA is always Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Username. Then I can lookup the page text. —Xyrael / 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem - the user had an extremely complicated username; I've been searching the user log under "s" as well as my email but I simply cannot find any sign of the case or even the username! I'd like to extend my apologies over this - once the nominations are ended I intend to set about creating an archive system that works for the AMA. In the meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to examine my Med Cabal case? Once again, my apologies. Also, hope your exams go well (sourced from your notice placed on User:Xyrael).

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 13:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is out to get me - I mediated that case for the MedCabal, then for a trial run for getting onto MedCom, and now I'm commenting on a MedCom nomination related to it. Weird. Okay, looking at that case I'm not seeing a huge amount of actual advocacy, as basically Seraphim changed his mind. I don't mean to be too picky, but am I missing something there? I'm still leaning towards support, but I would like to see if we do have some evidence, somewhere. Thanks! :) —Xyrael / 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire advocacy system was conducted over email, with respects to the Seri...(I can never remember the exact name :) 's wishes. If you require, I can copy over the communications, although I'll need about half an hour. Also, I believe the fact that I had to maintain a rather heavy discussion with Google is a key point; really, this is the best I can give you at the moment with regards to past cases. The reason I am looking to join MedCom is so that I can deal with more challenging and controvertial cases in a position of authority rather than just a bystander. Cheers and regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hogmanay and New Year's Day!

In response to your querie sent via email regarding adding a definition, remember that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary; although every good article begins with a definition, aritcles that are simply a definition are liable to be deleted. If you are looking to simply add a definition, jump over to Wikitionary, the Dictionary version of Wikipedia.

However, if you are looking to add an article, simply type into the search bar the name of the article you want to create; if nothing comes up, then the article doesn't exit and you can create it by following the instructions provided.

I hope this helps - if you need more clarification or have any more questions, just post them here!

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 

The content previously here was written in an abusive and uncivil fashion; therefore, the content has been removed. There will be no consequences to the editor - he/she was frustrated and not to blame for his/her actions.

Nevertheless, incivility is inexcusable and will not be tolerated - the content has been removed. If you wish to view the post, please feel free: it is located here.

The blanking of this comment is in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility/Removing Uncivil Comments, point 2.

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Celtic supporter all the way. I see harldy any of the SPL down hear, maybe a heighlight heere or there on the late news. But I still follow them through the newpapers. My mum is a Celtic supporter originally from Scotland so I just caught on. I've been a supporter for about five years. Normy132 06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply - we are a little light on Scots on Wikipedia, never mind Celtic supporters. Also - please don't use "re" in a post header! It really gets me going :) Cheers, regards and see you around, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--> Comments here have been removed basically because they irritated me..and it's not often I lose my cool. Feel free to view the comment here; Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Anthony cfc/key/Unresolved

Hi. I have been watching the activities of User Yrgh since he made some questionnable edits to a few of the Dune-related pages, which are my primary area of interest, and noticed that you have become the latest to join a group of people who have tried to reason with him. While I make no excuse for the behavior of other users, I trust that you have also had a look at his archived talk page and his contributions. --SandChigger 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in particlular I should be looking for in the archive? Also, did you notice my request at the top of the page - don't include "re" in the header! I'm not being picky - it's just that it sets of a certain medical condition of mine :) Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...I did in fact read it the first time I came by this page. Sorry for the oversight.

What to look for in the archive: where the two users in question have apologized and tried to patch things up and where others, including myself, have tried to persuade Yrgh to consider the implications of his own actions. (Your "You're not hated" comment echoes one of my own.)

More important is Yrgh's contributions, specifically his continuing failure to post complaints correctly on the RFC page, his uncivil comments on various pages (including yours), failure to sign comments almost everywhere, and his posting of copyrighted material to the Illuminati article, for which he was temporarily blocked. (I can provide diff links for all of these if you want.) Note also these two suspicious edits from IP address 64.230.47.240: Juppiter user page, Konman72 user page.

I don't really know Juppiter other than in this connection, but I do know that TAnthony has done an enormous amount of valuable work on the Dune pages. I would hate to see him be censured as a result of having tangled with someone who appears, from my POV, to be something of a trouble maker. Until now I have been under the impression that it takes more than edit count to qualify as a "valuable editor". --SandChigger 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll CheckUser him with the two IPs - the edits do indeed seem suspicious. Perhaps it is time to post User:Yrgh on AIV? Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there's still a couple of links that still direct to me; eg my inbox (see the talk page header). If I get any emails that are meant to go to you before you can change it over, I'll be sure to forward them on :) Why I came here is that I believe your Signpost idea has a fair amount of promise - I'd be happy to do it, unless you want to, and discussion will take place on Talk:Wikipedia Signpost. Also, given the text of the GNU FDL and general etiquette, it is good form to acknowledge where you have "adopted" the design of your userpage from - I have no objection to people using it, but I'd like to be acknowledged when it does. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]