Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 102: Line 102:


: AGK, please see my comment at [[WP:AE]]. I too object to your block of Verbal. And if what I see above and on Jehochman's talkpage is an indication that you threatened Jehochman with a block too, I would notify you in advance that I'd strongly object to that too. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
: AGK, please see my comment at [[WP:AE]]. I too object to your block of Verbal. And if what I see above and on Jehochman's talkpage is an indication that you threatened Jehochman with a block too, I would notify you in advance that I'd strongly object to that too. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
==Re Verbal: appeal==
See [[Wikipedia:AE#Appeal by Verbal]]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:00, 7 February 2010

User:AGK/Notice

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Appeal

Hello AGK, my apologies but please could I request your help for a moment, there is a certain editor User:Dbachmann being very uncivil toward me and harrassing me. I'm very concerned with his behaviour toward me, as you can see on my talk page and his, and the article History of Iraq. I know you are a fair and decent admin and appeal to you in confidence. Izzedine 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You two must disengage. Stay away from him. AGK 14:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've banned Izzedine, so disengagement is hardly relevant at this stage. Moreschi (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably for the best. AGK 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Curious

[1] - I thought someone should ask what your opinion is on this matter, since, after all, you are the one being discussed :) — James Kalmar 07:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that we would in essence be electing ten arbitrators from the candidates to the 2009 elections. The community were told that only nine would be appointed, and the votes that were cast reflect that thinking. So a last-minute addition to the committee could be said to be improper. An interesting precedent on this note is the audit subcommittee (AUSC) elections that took place a few months ago. The committee moved to appoint four candidates, where the difference between the bottom two was a very tiny number of votes. The community made it quite clear that such a late adjustment to the parameters of the election was unacceptable, and that the appointment should not be made. But then again, that appointment was to be made on the basis that the support rates for the two candidates was so small as to be negligible. Those who are suggesting that I be appointed are doing so because a vacancy has arisen, which is a quite separate matter. (In fact, many who opposed the AUSC last-minute appointment said that they would support it only if it was to cover a vacancy.) So maybe it would be proper to appoint me, and maybe it wouldn't. I really can't decide, and moreover, I shouldn't: I'm kinda biased.

As for whether I'd like to be appointed? Sure, I'd be happy to sit on the committee until December. AGK 12:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:SPIconfirmedsock

Template:SPIconfirmedsock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I have commented at the TfD discussion. AGK 13:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Gaza War

Hi. I'd like to ask that you consider removing the article protection which you put in place for the Gaza War article. It was certainly needed at the time and I should probably thank you for doing that. So it has been protected for almost three months now. Things have quieted down and there is a backlog of information from recent developments that editors would like to get to. As I understand it, the initial protection was required because of an edit war which resulted in serveral user blocks which have since been expired. Time heals all wounds and I think it has in this case. We may have a scar or two but I think that the editors who have been on the talk page are ready to move forward developing the article. Thanks for your help. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed my protection, without prejudice to a full or partial re-protection in the event of a resumption of disruptive editing. Those who proceed to force their changes into this article, instead of pursuing a consensus through discussion and DR, are reminded that their conduct is disruptive and that they will probably find themselves blocked. AGK 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still protected. nableezy - 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I agree with you that editors need to take some personal responsibility and hopefully we can deal with disruptions that way. I think Nableezy is right also. Is there something else we need to do for unprotection? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No; after writing out my reply to your request, I had forgotten to actually unprotect the page. Sorry about that. It is definitely now unprotected. AGK 12:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably remain move protected though. nableezy - 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I had thought it was an oversight but the Canadian in me was too polite to say so outright. Unlike my friend Nableezy with his Chicagoan directness. Thanks again for your help. Hopefully no more of it will be needed. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think semi protection is warranted to prevent editing from rouge IP users. The first two edits came from such users once protection was lifted. I think this form of limited protection will find broad support from all involved editors--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't support it. The problems are caused by established editors who won't follow policy rather than IPs. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with SeanHoyland. Would be better if Admins utilized the Wiki general sanctions assigned to this topic area to identify and warn the users whose article edits invariably advance only one POV. There is not even a veneer of neutrality in many cases. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to volunteer to become an administrator and spend hours policing an article that many would categorise as a "lost cause"? If so, then fine, Roma, we'll all stop using page protection. But the bottom line is that sometimes a blanket stop to editing is the most efficient method of preventing disruption to an encyclopedia entry. AGK 12:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I literally LOLed. Not sure if it was your intent or not but go enjoy your wikibreak. I'm sure we can all agree to play nice and see what happens if not. RomaC and I actually agree it looks like so we can move it to working on the article. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry about all the ruckus. I just wanted to leave a note here as a courtesy, thinking AGK was on break and then I'd ask at RFP a day or two later. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Hello & Chart Question

Hello! I recently decided to create a chart of AUSC membeship, similar to the Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent (I did this as a service to the community as well as a way to improve my abilities with the chart-creating syntax). However, I am noticing that the names on my chart are not not properly centered within the bars (compare the two charts and you will see what I mean). I saw you had made some edits to the Committee Chart, so I thought you might have some ideas. If not, I apologize for bothering you. Have a great day! — James F Kalmar 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I figured it out [2]. Sorry to have bothered you. But, whew, that is a rather complex system. Anyway, best wishes! — James F Kalmar 07:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heavens, that is an annoyingly complex template to work with. I'm not surprised you had trouble! Regards, AGK 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important

I've replied to you at my talk page. Please email me from the address I know about to confirm that you are still in control of this account. You're acting highly odd. Jehochman Brrr 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, please see my comment at WP:AE. I too object to your block of Verbal. And if what I see above and on Jehochman's talkpage is an indication that you threatened Jehochman with a block too, I would notify you in advance that I'd strongly object to that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Verbal: appeal

See Wikipedia:AE#Appeal by Verbal. --TS 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=342542573"