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
RR1953 (talk | contribs)
139 edits
No edit summary
Line 227: Line 227:


: No problem at all. Good work on the article! [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
: No problem at all. Good work on the article! [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

== Copy of a deleted artiole ==
Hi would it be possible to get a copy of thelast version of the now deleted article [[Suicide of Nicola Raphael]] you were listed among the admins who could provide copies?
thanks
R [[User:RR1953|RR1953]] ([[User talk:RR1953|talk]]) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:15, 29 January 2011

Note: If I left a message on your talk page, I'll reply there. If you leave one here, I'll reply here. User:AGK/Notice

MediationBot

Moving this here, as WT:BAG isn't really the place for it.

Code is almost done. How does this sound?

Sound good? In particular, I don't know if you'd rather have some or all of the complaints go to somewhere instead of User talk:AnomieBOT, or if you'd want the users that couldn't be notified listed on the case page or anywhere. Anomie⚔ 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is almost precisely what we need. One minor adjustment is that the default MedCom member it should be signed by should not be User:Example but [[User:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}}]]. Should I run this through my toolserver account? That's what previous chairs have done. AGK [•] 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would never use User:Example; right now it would use the username from the "most recent edit by a MedCom member" found in the previous step, although I could change that easily enough.
I'll run the code from my own machine, under User:AnomieBOT unless you'd really prefer I register User:MediationBot2 or something similar. Either way the code will be posted on-wiki in case anyone needs to reuse it in the future for any reason. Anomie⚔ 17:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The MedCom operated an old account: User:MediationBot (distinct from MedBot1), so that's open for use. If possible, I'd like for us to use that—just so that messages delivered in relation to formal mediation use an account that mentions mediation. Mediation is often complicated enough without adding into the fray a bot which apparently isn't involved with mediation at all :P. I'm happy to give you, as the bot operator, the password and for you to change it to something confidential, to avoid violating the role-accounts policy. AGK [•] 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Special:EmailUser/Anomie should get me the info. Anomie⚔ 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have the old account usurped but it might take some time as I need to hunt down the MedCom member who operated the first account. Should we register, say, MediationBot3 for now (leaving MediationBot2 free so that MediationBot can be usurped to that, then 3 usurped to MediationBot)? We could then do some trial runs whilst we're waiting for the usurpation to go through.

Also, are you using User:MediationBot1/Rejected case and User:MediationBot1/Accepted case to notify the parties? We've always used on-wiki messages so that they can be quickly changed if more or less information is needed in the templates used for notification. AGK [•] 15:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing about those, I had actually created User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk accepted message and User:AnomieBOT/MedComClerk rejected message; the major difference in approach is that my versions don't include the signature directly so the bot can copy it from the accept/reject message in the case. Should all notifications be signed by you (or {{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}}) rather than the MedCom member who actually approved or rejected? Anomie⚔ 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no bother; we could just copy the content over to the new pages that are in AnomieBOT's userspace.

Erm, I think it'd be best if they are signed by the MedCom member who actually processed the rejection or acceptance. It always was confusing when we had the notifications signed by the Chair but the rejection signed by another mediator, and I think we used only the Chairman's signature because nobody had bothered to change the bot to look for what signature to use. It's a nifty little improvement, on balance :). AGK [•] 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could exclusion-compliance prove problematic wrt messages not being delivered to parties who have {{bot}} on their page? We wouldn't know that they hadn't received the notification; the bot in effect would quietly fail, which is a breach of process that I probably wouldn't ever think to check for. Maybe it could post on User talk:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}} if it encounters {{bot}} at all?

Should I file the BRFA or will you? Oh, and I haven't thanked you for your work on this yet. You've coded this quicker than I could have hoped and you've been very patient. It's greatly appreciated, and I'll be digging up the biggest, shiniest barnstar for your userpage when everything's settled - and one for AnomieBOT too, of course :). AGK [•] 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just finished coding up code to post to the case's talk page if anyone can't be notified, either because their talk page is fully-protected or because the bot is excluded. I could change that to User talk:{{Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Chair/Username}} if you really want, but I've also just filed the BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MediationBot. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to ask about Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote. As it stands, a member of the Committee, using that template, notifies all the parties to a case as soon as the case is filed that the request exists. Could the bot notify them instead at all? Often lists of parties are poorly formatted so the bot would have to not notify anybody if the list wasn't formatted right; otherwise, we might have some parties being notified and others not (and no way of knowing that that'd happened, unless the bot reported an error to the Chair's talk page or whatnot). Could be a handy little feature, if you're able to code it. AGK [•] 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blue Army (Poland)

Since the bot is down, could you do the needful for the above request? The initiating user is newer to Wikipedia and would probably have a hard time figuring out where to transclude, etc. Thanks, –xenotalk 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; I've declined the request now. AGK [•] 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall Problem Mediation

Yo! How's about we get back into it? If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you would read some stuff I've posted here, which I think brings every dispute into focus, and shows that both styles of solutions from the reliable sources solve the same exact problem statement, meeting all mathematic and Wikipedia requirements. The sections are very brief, so far containing only my input. I am not implying any other editor agrees, but I think this is good, understandable, and useful stuff. Glkanter (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll catch up with Sunray and then get the mediation running again. AGK [•] 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder that we've been on an unannounced hiatus for some time. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time I do have available to spend on the MHP mediation is at the moment being used up in participating in internal MedCom discussions about this case. It is going nowhere and none of us can decide what to do about that. I would be grateful if the parties would be patient during this delay. When/if we resume, I will respond to your e-mails if I have anything constructive to add then. For now, in reply to your question about whether I find them helpful: I don't know because I haven't been reading them (other than a skim) because of the temporary pause that is in place wrt the MHP. When it is time to read them, these rules might be of help: 1) less is more, especially by e-mail; 2) if I have nothing to say to an e-mail, I won't reply - but if I find an e-mail helpful, I will always reply. Regards, AGK [•] 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an active participating editor in the MHP mediation, I am taken aback that discussions and decisions are going on without any notifications whatsoever. I will be greatly disappointed if no further input is sought from the participating editors prior to decisions being made. Glkanter (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the absence of the mediators, I think some aspects of the dispute have become very clear. Perhaps some of the ideas that have been developed and refined by the editors that have invested substantial amounts of time in an effort to make the dispute easier to understand would help in your deliberations. I think its telling that there are no more than 5 sources who are critical of the simple solutions. Of those 5, I think its debatable whether any of those is actually making the claims that are being argued by the loyal opposition. Rick Block has prepared a table on the mediation talk page that shows those 5, out of about 50 sources in the table. Plus countless hundreds (thousands) of other sources. Only *at most* 5 are critical. That is not a significant minority view. And it should not be the dominant view of the current article. But it is. The whole thing has been a tempest in a teapot. Nothing more than GAMESMANSHIP and WIKILAWYERING. Glkanter (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question‎

I see I made a complete b-up in adding my statement directly to the page. I'm hopeless with anmy form of official procedute. Do I need to resubmit the statement? Paul B (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Preliminary statements can only be made when the statement is in the requests process. The requests process has ended, and the case is now in the evidence stage, so there is little point in adding a statement. Additionally, as the addition of your statement after the statements section has ended would alter the apparent context of the case with regards to the arbitrator comments, a late statement is actually unwelcome. I would recommend that you instead focussing on contributing by adding evidence to the case evidence page and workshop proposals to the workshop. Regards, AGK [•] 21:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused too. You invited me to provide evidence on the 'case'. But what is the 'case'? On the case page, there are several statements by different people. I understand that page is now closed, and according to Lessheard, some of these statements are doing the wrong thing. There are also references to 'NewYorkBrads Request', but I can't see what that is. On the evidence page, there are various comments that seem to be addressing completely different things. In short, what exactly is the 'case' I am invited to provide evidence on? Poujeaux (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to submit evidence to the "Shakespeare authorship question" arbitration case, follow the evidence link that is clearly included in the notification. If you don't understand what this means, you need to read the guide to arbitration. I've no idea what "NewYorkBrad's request" means, so I can't help you with that. AGK [•] 23:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issue

Hello - the mediation bot earlier posted closed and rejected cases on the MedCom open tasks template. I removed the error and the bot just added it back. I don't know whether you are in charge of the bot, but I direct this to you as chair of the committee.

Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the cases you removed appear to still be open, in that they don't have the {{closed case}} template; the rest were for some reason still in Category:Mediation Committee current cases despite being closed.
AGK, should the bot take care of removing Category:Mediation Committee current cases from pages that are also in Category:Mediation Committee closed cases? Anomie⚔ 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roem: Thanks for noticing that. I'll take a look at the case and try to sort it.

Anomie: What cases that I removed? Do you mean when I declined the requests? Declined requests don't get {{closed case}}; only accepted requests (ie. open cases) that are resolved or closed get that template. I'm going to process all the pending requests now, so this could be considered the first part of the trial. Wish me luck :P. AGK [•] 21:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors found:
  1. It's notified the filing party of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Humble Indie Bundle but not the one other party; it should have been the other way around. AGK [•] 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we put into the template a line like <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-{{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>1}}}---> (where {{{1}}} is the casename), could MedComBot look for that line and only skip the notification if that was found? That way we could be more sure that the party was definitely notified, because that line would only appear as part of an actual notification. AGK [•] 20:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done to User:MediationBot/Opened message, apply something like this to any other notification template. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cases Roem removed, in this edit. Anomie⚔ 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: it didn't seem to notify the parties to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Exemplar that the request was rejected. AGK [•] 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue: the bot is removing {{rejected case}} as required, but not changing the "pending cases" category to the "rejected cases" category.[1] AGK [•] 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are the same issue: there was a typo that made it not correctly find Category:Mediation Committee pending cases to change it to Category:Mediation Committee rejected cases, and when it doesn't find that it also doesn't notify anyone. Should be fixed now, please re-apply {{rejected case}} and it should work. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Exemplar has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Exemplar, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan

With the Arbitration Committee referring the case to the Mediation Committee, and the latter closing the case due to unavailability of mediators, where is the matter deferred to for dispute resolution now? Prime Blue (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appleyard nom

here it is. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him if he was interested; he didn't approach us, really :P. AGK [•] 16:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An Arbitration case involving you has been opened"

AGK, I was surprised to see a post by Smatprt on the Shakespeare Authorship Question workshop, that's why I'm writing. I see you sent Smatprt the usual template about opening the case, i. e. you told him he could add evidence, contribute to the workshop, etc. Are you aware that he's topic banned from the Authorship articles? See his userpage. Has he got some sort of dispensation to take part in this case? Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, please check my talk page.[2] My banning admin, LessHeard, specifically said I may participate. Since you and I have a history on these pages going back 3 years, and you actively persued my banning, I understand why you would wish to silence me, but is that really kosher? Don't you think it best for the encyclopedia that all parties be heard once and for all? By the way, as an involved editor on these pages, do you think it kosher that you threatened NinaGreen with use of your administrative powers? Also, locking a page when you are an (extremely) involved editor, as you did here?[3] As an involved editor, I thought administrators were not supposed to use their powers in this way. Smatprt (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to draw this squabbling to your page, AGK. Smatprt, thank you for your kind interest in my admin conduct. I'll reply on User talk:Smatprt. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't realise when sending out the notifications that Smartprt was topic-banned; but a topic-ban, as defined at WP:TBAN, does not I think prohibit somebody from participating in an arbitration case that involves the concerned topic area. My understanding of standard practice is this: just as editors who are blocked or banned can still submit evidence (usually by proxy, such as via e-mail to a clerk) to an arbitration case, so too can topic-banned editors give evidence in an arbitration case relating to the topic they are banned from. Am I mistaken, Bishonen?
I'm sure you're right. Topic-banned editors are such rare birds that I'm not even sure I've ever come across one with an interest in an arbitration case before; I was merely going by the banned-means-banned principle. Very likely it doesn't apply here, especially since both you and LessHeardvanU think it doesn't. Bishonen | talk 05:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Smartprt: Most of your comments above have no relevance to this thread (and I am pleased to see they have been moved to a more appropriate page), but the question about Bishonen's question not being proper is. To answer that point: I don't think the question was improper. Involved users questioning one another is part and parcel of the arbitration process. AGK [•] 20:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Sniper

Hi, I want to have Vandalsniper. I completed the application. If you need to tell me anything or something, can we continue the conversation on my page please?S.V.Taylor (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Help:Talk page#Sections for information on how to properly leave a message on another user's talk page. You should also leave a space before typing the four tildes (~~~~), so that your signature doesn't squash against the rest of your message. I'll process your application at some point soon. Regards, AGK [•] 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I may have been a bit bold in already removing him from the application list. I actually had to remove Twinkle from him just tonight, so I would obviously also recommend against granting him sniper rifles. But it's up to you, obviously. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really have to block him? You seemed to do it not because of what he was doing (you were initially satisfied with a final warning) but because of what he said (you blocked after he questioned your reasoning). I will defer to you regarding the vandalsniper application, but this is still an administrator challenge. AGK [•] 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I blocked him because, after being warned not to pester good-faith users with frivolous vandal warnings, and after promising to behave, he then turned towards the opposite disruption pattern, of "welcoming" actual vandals, an obvious POINT move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might have the timeline wrong, but didn't he stop doing everything you complained about as soon as you asked? The user may need a few clue jabs but he seems well-intentioned and I wonder whether a block was - and still is - needed. AGK [•] 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he had displayed a repeated pattern of doing one disruptive thing, getting told not to do it, wasting people's time asking why he shouldn't do it, promising not to do it, and then immediately doing a different disruptive thing instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has a history of trying his hand in a new area, messing up, being told how to do it properly, and slowly learning. To me it seems that you are demonising what is essentially incompetence and mistaking a lack of clue for malicious intent. The block is a good thing at the moment because it's stopping him from doing more stupid things, but the right thing to do now would be to educate him on the purpose of Wikipedia (to improve the namespace, not try to beat the RC-bots) and work with him to find what topics he can start off in. No? AGK [•] 00:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say there were moments when I felt pretty certain it was actually not just immaturity but deliberate trolling. I may have been wrong about that, or not. But in any case, I'm afraid right now the only right thing for me to do is to be off to bed at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Talkback

{{talkback|Hasteur|Smartse RFA}}

Replied - AGK [•] 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus

First of all, your message is completely ill-timed, irrational and completely unnecessary. I have not visited Malleus's talk page for over 24 hours. Secondly I have even tried to make amends at User talk:Dana boomer, conversing with Malleus since and have seemingly come to an agreement with him over what is required of GAs and that perhaps a review was not the best solution. As for being offensive I retaliated in anger after I read his comment about me being "King of Sub Stubs" and not having a right to have a view on good articles because I've created stubs. Since I've admitted he has made many satisfactory reviews on Dana's talk page and have explained why I thought the article didn't meet GA standards. Your message to me today I am completely dumb-founded and puzzled at why you thought it was neccesary now to do so. Either you are trying to flex your "authoritive muscles" by dumbly threatening to block me or you clearly got your wires crossed with the date... As your message to me indicated I have been hounding Malleus within the last hour or so which is absurd, especially as I've tried to patch things up on Dana's page and have not visited his talk page in over 24 hours, . {REDACTED} ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me add to that, I understand that you mean well AGK, but the good doctor and I are perfectly able to sort out our differences like adults, even if ultimately that means we choose simply to ignore each other. We had, and still have, a fundamental difference of opinion, and that led to some ill-considered words, I'm sure Dr. Blofeld would say on both sides. Clearly my description of him as "the king of Micro-stubs" rankled, and in retrospect I probably ought to have kept my opinion to myself. Equally clearly his description of me a a "D-grade reviewer" also rankled. There's no black-and-white here, just two decent editors having a disagreement on a talk page. No real harm done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have also made it completely clear with Malleus that I am not picking on him individually and that I fully support his efforts to increase our percentage of GAs. In fact I think getting any article to have some sort of standard of quality which has been reviewed is probably the most important step that can be made on here in meeting with our obligations to try to provide quality as well as sheer scope... Your message AGK was very strangely timed given what's happened this afternoon on Dana's talk page but I'll assume you believed I was hounding Malleus this afternoon... If he genuinely was a D grade reviewer of course, I'm pretty sure he'd have been banned from reviewing by now!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I genuinely believed that I was a D-grade reviewer then I'd have banned myself. This is finished as far as I'm concerned, nothing more needs to be said, or ought to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrational and unnecessary? No, your behaviour warranted the warning. Mistimed? No, because talk page disussions are often protracted. An arbitration case? Please, don't make me laugh. The warning stands; carry on and you will be blocked. Now, don't we each have something productive to do? AGK [•] 17:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think that your tone is appropriate. The disagreement that Dr. Blofeld and I had is over, and was winding down when you issued your warning to him. I'm not some delicate flower that needs to be protected from a bit of robust disagreement. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tone being an unwillingness to allow editors to proverbially sling mud at one another? And the warning was not really intended to preserve your feelings; I know that you can hold your own against the worst kinds of interaction. But as Dr Blofeld has conceded that he could have worded things without resorting to the "D-class review" remark, and what with no negative comments being made on your talk since this thread started, I've not got much else to add to this discussion. AGK [•] 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus/Dr Blofeld: On a more general note, I'm interested in your thoughts on whether it's appropriate to ask editors to not resort to insults? The term "civility police" is bandied around often in reference to warnings to behave civilly, and I've always thought of myself as a sysop who can do more than slam the banhammer on anybody who cusses and leave the civil (and thus ostensibly-productive) editors alone. Consider, for instance, what the impact of Dr Blofeld's comment would have been on an inexperienced editor who is not as, um, used to frank discussions as Malleus. AGK [•] 22:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dr. Blofeld and I were having what I would call a robust discussion. He said some stuff, I said some stuff, nobody died and it's now all over. Dr. Blofeld didn't address his remarks to an inexperienced editor, he addressed them to me, and me likewise. Had the comments that either of us made been addressed to an inexperienced editor then I think your warning might have been in order. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalsniper application

Hi there! Letting you know that I dropped off my application over yonder. If you could take a look, that would be great. Thanks! Silivrenion (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I've added you to the access list. AGK [•] 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Pakistanis

Hi. I saw that you designated British Pakistanis a good article. Can I ask where the GA review is? As far as I knew, it hadn't even been started. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review is implicit for successful nominations, in that the article meets all of the good article criteria. AGK [•] 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've queried this here. I don't think the article does meet the criteria. That might just be a difference of opinion (although there are spelling errors in the article that are hard to deny) but at the very least I feel that a review page should have been created. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to this entire situation leaves me deeply unimpressed, as I have opined on the discussion at WT:GA. Querying another reviewer's decision is to be actively encouraged. Sheer process wonkering and whinging, however, is precisely the sort of thing that stops people contributing to Wikipedia. AGK [•] 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the lack of process meant that it was difficult to establish whether you had taken factors such as the spelling errors into account when reviewing the article. I would also suggest that your approach puts people off because it involves making decisions without leaving a proper record of the rationale behind them. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarama/GA2

I could not understand why the article was failed on prose issues. Talk:Sarama/GA1 is acted upon and a WP:GOCE was done. Point specific instances of poor prose. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "point to". The article simply doesn't flow; it doesn't read well. I think you should collaborate with some other editors and try to work on getting the article read better. I can't give you much more advice than that; it simply isn't up to scratch quite yet. Good work so far, though. AGK [•] 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion that this article simply doesn't flow well is of course my own. You are welcome to seek a second opinion. AGK [•] 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Second opinion: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sarama/1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I wonder, what with the average wait on GAN being some weeks and for your article being many months, how long it will take for the re-assessment to be handled :P. AGK [•] 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about arbitration

Apparently my proposal is not of the type the arbitration committee looks at. Can I delete it or move it somewhere else to get it out of the way? Also is there any way to stop Nina from making the section unreadable with her lengthy and repetitious postings? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All workshops worth their salt are unreadable, Tom. You want to cultivate an appreciation of those Ninaspeak gems! Bishonen | talk 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
If you want to withdraw your workshop proposal (which is not the sort of thing that could ever be found in an arbitration ruling), the best way is to put {{collapse top}} at the start and {{collapse bottom}} at the end, after all the discussion.

The volume or length of comments made on the workshop is not usually restricted except in instances where it is so lengthy as to be disruptive. I'm afraid you'll have to learn the age-old art of tuning it out. AGK [•] 14:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2010 Shanghai fire/GA1

Wow, just noticed it had been reviewed and passed. Thanks! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Good work on the article! AGK [•] 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of a deleted artiole

Hi would it be possible to get a copy of thelast version of the now deleted article Suicide of Nicola Raphael you were listed among the admins who could provide copies? thanks R RR1953 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=410828122"