User talk:Arcticocean

User:Selery

I've registered my notice here of the indefinite blockage. I have no strong presentiment but could imagine some involvement if I could help. It seems it's been a pretty bad run but it's hard to tell, obviously, from easily available record. Swliv (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now made a modest, unconventional but real proposal* there. I felt inclined to go the extra mile. I think I can live with it however it goes but would welcome your opinion, even if you say "Withdraw the offer at once!!" Thanks. Swliv (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Belated response, but I followed up there. I hope my remarks make it more clear what went on, and thanks for enquiring. Regards, AGK [•] 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My proposal* followed your response/exchange over there. Yes, your work there was great. Though we may be mixed up, according to time-stamps. I have a new proposal there as of half-an-hour or so ago. And, to distinguish, I didn't think of my first foray as a proposal exactly: "imagine" phase first .... Swliv (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Red Thunder NA/MC

If this is not allowed because of "group"... then can all the other groups also be deleted? Or is this being singled out for a specific reason other than that listed?

Clarification is very good about this "problem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Thunder MC (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your username is not allowed because of WP:Username policy, and for no other reason. There certainly is no conspiracy! AGK [•] 21:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion titles RFC

FYI, I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles is good to go. Let me know what you think. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Please proceed. AGK [•] 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I have a few ideas as to who could be the closing admins (and still do recommend Mr. Stradivarius be a closer, even though he's not an admin), but I understand ArbCom is selecting these. I'll wait to hear back from you. (FYI, this is what a binding/structured content discussion would look like, per my proposal) :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Late evidence

I'm sorry, but this is the first ARBCOM case in which I've ever participated and I didn't realize the deadline was so strict. I spent hours of my Sunday getting that stuff in yesterday before midnight (midnight my time). Besides, I had most of my evidence mostly in before the GMT dead line (is that the official dead line?) in this version, except for paring that I had to do per what the bot said. I promise I'll never make that mistake again! Please allow it in. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I noticed your suggestion in the edit summary locking the page to contact a clerk for further submissions, so I just did[1]. Thanks. Again, sorry for the mistakes I'm making. This process is totally new to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Striking because Alexandr said you said you will answer here[2]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(Placeholder: I'll respond in full to your enquiry tomorrow, but with your explanation I'm prepared to accept your submission.) AGK [•] 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I'm concerned all of the evidence I submitted remains hidden. Might that prevent it from being reviewed? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've unhatted the evidence. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, I think this course of action is potentially prejudicial to others who have submitted their evidence in good time. I am aware that a number of the parties have not been active on WP since posting their evidence; one can assume that they may have been looking at the evidence up until the deadline, but not after. So I think that, in fairness, they should be alerted to the fact that late evidence has been allowed, and that they be given a right of reply to same should they wish it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The above has now been cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Arbcom case: Article Titles. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Late evidence at Article Titles and Capitalisation

Hi AGK, I note that you hatted off some late evidence. I thought you may want to do the same with my riposte to that late evidence, as it no longer seems appropriate. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

After consulting with Born2cycle, we are accepting his evidence, so your rebuttal can remain. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request of Imeriki al-Shimoni

Hello AGK. Imeriki al-Shimoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Caught in a checkuserblock - 67.6.128.0/18, been on WP for 4 years (700 edits), clean block log - how about IPBE?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. IPBE is acceptable. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

suggest rephrase

There's sometime just a little off on your first sentence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Wheel-warring Nobody Ent 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with my comment? AGK [•] 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"to allowing" doesn't make sense to me. Maybe:

I hope the community reacts to this principle by reversing the disruptive tendency of recent years to of allowing the flippant reversal of administrator actions.

Nobody Ent 23:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

or

I hope the community reacts to this principle by reversing the disruptive tendency of recent years to allowing the flippant reversal of administrator actions.

Nobody Ent 23:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :). I thought you were disagreeing with my observation, rather than pointing out a typo. These cases are a lot of work, and my English gets sloppy after tens of votes! I meant to write the second, and I've now corrected. AGK [•] 23:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:Drmccreedy

Just a heads up, there's an unblock request over at User talk:Drmccreedy which seems related to a recent {{checkuserblock}} you set on 67.6.128.0/18 – Luna Santin (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also just noticed this is the second note you've gotten about this, recently. Looks like some new information, so I'll duck out and hope this isn't a duplicate! >.> – Luna Santin (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)