User talk:Aarktica

Religious democracy

Thank you for your comment. Farhoudk 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance sign-up

Thanks for joining the project! The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw if you want, you can also add this userbox to your userpage: Template:User Editor Assistance Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now added you to the list. For some reason, the section edit button doesn't seem to work, but if you use the Edit tab at the top of the page then it seems to work OK. I copied the signup comment you left at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance, but feel free to change it if needed. Also, don't forget to add your user page to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the intervention.

Re your message: No problem. =) As for your question, only administrators can block IPs or editors. In this case with the fast vandal, you would just have to sit on the article history and keep reverting until an administrator notices the report on WP:AIV and blocks the vandal. On a side note, on your warnings to editors/IPs, you'll went to add "subst:" to the notices you leave. Don't worry about going back and subst'ing the ones you didn't do, there is a couple of bots that will do that. Lastly, thanks for helping to revert vandalism. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. =) Oh, you might want to put your user page into your watchlist if you plan to continue reverting vandals. Some have a habit of vandalizing your user page in a feeble attempt at retaliation. You already got a visit, which I reverted. -- Gogo Dodo 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletion discussions

Ah, yes- I'm afraid in some debates the tags go above the header and in some they go below. I mostly close AfDs (where tags go above) and RfDs (where tags go below). Headers will show up at the bottom of the discussion below if the discussions are all on one page (AfD each have their own seperate page). There are also (for reasons I don't understand different types of tag for different discussion). For example:

Afds are closed with {{Afd top}} and {{Afd bottom}}

Mfds are closed with {{Mfd top}} and {{Mfd bottom}}

Ifds are closed with {{Ifd top}} and {{Ifd bottom}}

etc.

I really have no idea why...
Now in spite of the above, because most nominations at IfD are not discussed, there isn't usually any discussion to close. So I think most old IfD pages don't have any templates on them at all. I hope this is all of some help get back to me if you have any other questions. WjBscribe 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, don't worry about it - the system is over complicated. {{at}} is a redirect to {{afd top}} and {{ab}} is a redirect to {{afd bottom}} so they do the same as if you typed the full name. I didn't know they existed but they obviously were created as a shortcut for those who didn't want to type the full name- quite useful, thanks for pointing them out. WjBscribe 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me do it- as an admin I have a rollback button that'll make it pretty quick. If you decide to reclose any of the discussions or are thinking of closing them in future bear in mind:

• Closing IfD debates where there wss little comment is a waste of your time
• Its best if non admins only close discussions that are unabiguous keeps or where the thing being discussed has already been deleted.
• Avoid closing discussions you offered an opinion in.

WjBscribe 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've changed my mind- they can stay as they are. I don't see what harm they do. Thanks for helping out. WjBscribe 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say as I don't much about what interests you. If you tell me a bit about what sort of things you enjoy doing, I can probably point you towards something. If your interested in some of our more procedural and technical areas, I know that two projects that are desperate for people to help out are:

• Categorising articles- see all the uncategorised articles in Category:Uncategorized pages. The idea is you pick a page, and add it to the most appropriate categories. E.g. its page about an american novelist born in 1945 so it belongs in Category:American novelists (if they write romance, there's a subcat for Category:American romantic fiction writers) and Category:1945 births. Or if you don't think the article should be on Wikiepdia, nominate it for speedy deletion if it meets the criteria or start an AfD about it.
• Fixing disambig links- this one's pretty obscure. For this you need to check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The problem is that if someone is writing about someone who is depressed, they link to depressed. But obviously "depression has many meanings" and they should have linked to Depression (mood) or Clinical Depression. The idea is that you go to a disambig page that has many links, click "what links here" on the right hand bar and go through the entries changing the links so they point to the right article rather than the page that lists all the possibilities.

I quite understand if those aren't you thing (that's why they're backlogged!). As I say, let me know what sort of thing you do enjoy and I might be able to find something for you. WjBscribe 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning toolbox updated

I've finally updated my vandal warning toolbox to use the new array of warning templates. Even if you're already using an updated derivative, you might want to take a look at the documentation to see how I may have handled it differently. I tried to keep things compact. Suggestions are welcome on the documentation's discussion page. Thanks for your interest. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never...

Welcome!

Hello, Aarktica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Template:Multicol The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Wikipedia Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Wikipedia code of conduct Notability guidelines What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia:Reference desk Template:Multicol-end I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Don't forget to edit your userpage and tell us a bit about yourself... Happy editing! — Scientizzle

— Scientizzle 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories of Europe (Template removal)

Hi, I noticed that you have warned the anonymous user about "vandalism". I am not sure that that was appropriate. I think you should assume good faith and consider that the template he/she was removing from several articles (Aosta Valley, Sardinia, Friuli-Venezia Giulia) may have been removed for a reason. I feel too that the template does not belong there because in doesn't even contain these regions (see Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe). Also, please remember that calling someone's edits vandalism when it's not is an offence in Wikipedia. Yury Petrachenko 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Can we link it - Request for Information.

Hi Aarktica, and sorry to take so long to get back to you with answers to you questions. For the wikification of new articles, I think that Can-We-Link-It is one of the tools currently used by the Wikify project. The difference between the Link Suggester / LinkBot and Can-We-Link-It is that the Link Suggester came first, and it was an offline script that I would manually run to suggest links, and the LinkBot would save those link suggestions to article talk pages. However, after 3 or 4 small-scale test runs it became clear that this approach had a number of problems:

1. The links suggested would become out-of-date as the article changed.
2. The talk page would become cluttered with suggestions, which annoyed people.
3. Sometimes links would be suggested for articles and ignored.
4. It was hard for people to give, and for me to get, feedback about which link suggestions were good and which were bad.
5. People would ask for it to be run on specific articles, in addition to the ones I randomly selected.

Because of these problems, the talk-page approach was abandoned. Instead, the Link Suggester scripts were modified to make an web-based link-suggesting tool, called Can-We-Link-It. This tool has a number of benefits:

1. Its suggestions are always current and up-to-date.
2. It doesn't clutter up the talk page.
3. It only suggests links for articles that people want suggestions for.
4. It's easy for people to give feedback about good or bad links by saying "yes" or "no" to a link.
5. It doesn't require me to manually run it, instead it runs on-demand.

The main downsides of the tool as it currently stands are:

1. Makes it easy to add lots of links - requiring evaluation of each link's merit from users.
2. You have to know the tool exists (i.e. the link suggestions don't come to you, you have to go and request them).

I hope that somewhere in there I have answered your question :-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Young Wikification

Thanks for your help on the Ralph Young article. I'm new to wikipedia, getting better since I did the Young article, and appreciate your taking the time to improve the article. Cbl62 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For having the guts to give a Rfa a try...keep up the work and you will make it eventually! Jmlk17 04:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA got closed while I was posting to it, but no matter. You are well on your way, just keep up the good work and consider getting an admin to coach you and show you the places you need to develop. Next time will turn out better. Good luck!! Trusilver 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you made the mature decision :D And in response to your response to me...you can leave it as long as you like, but once the bureau predicts snow, it's going to fall (unless they're an Australian bureau, in which case the drought will extend for another two months :P). Giggy _U^CP 06:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see your RfA was closed so early. If I had of seen it earlier I would have been highly in favor. I see you everyday on WP:EAR and have been a stalwart there. Adminship is not about having the tools, but about being trusted with the tools. With the move of most images to commons, most images we have on wp.en are "fair use" and grows at an alarming rate. Please drop me a message next time you are up for RfA. Its certainly not canvassing, the editors who see you in day to day action are probably better judges than editors judging you on a contribution log. Good luck Mike33 - t@lk 07:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of an editor review

I checked out your RfA...you shouldn't be discouraged at all. All of the comments were supportive and a few more months of solid work and you shouldn't have any problem.

I scanned your contribs for ~10 mins. Here's a couple of notes that might help for RfA #2: your edits

• Give it at least 2 months before trying again--some editors are really turned off by too quick a return to RfA (some view it as an over-eager attempt at a powergrab. 3 months is probably best.
• You've been working here for 4 months (exactly) and most like to see >6 of work. Some will possibly oppose based on their abitrary cutoff of 9-12 months, but half a year is usually sufficient to win over people as a baseline indication of project dedication.
• Your work at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is quite extensive. That's really cool to see. Keep it up, especially if you like doing it--a commitment to open collaboration and working within WP:BITE is a major plus.
• The point was made in the RfA and it's worth reiterating: you need to show a need for the tools in order to gain the support of many editors. You do have WP:AIV experience (which you should have put in your answer to Q1, btw), WP:RFD & WP:IFD experience (and a smattering of WP:AFD & speedy tagging), which is very good, as it is a primary way in which familiarity with relevant policies & guidelines is gleaned. Cleaning & wikifying articles doesn't require the admin bit, but blocks and deletions do. Gather more experience in these areas. Continue to participate on the Wikipedia talk pages if you see any relevant discussion, too.
• If you're interested in more niche activities such as copyright, be sure you're familiar inside & out with the relevant WP pages as questions will come up about how you might handle certain situations or apply policies.
• Since you're interested in copyediting (glad to see), join Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors! Wikiproject participation is generally a good thing (it shows you play well with others). Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify might fit, too.
• Put WP:AN & WP:ANI on your watchlists (if you haven't already). Get involved there and follow the discussions, they'll help you figure out what is expected of and needed from admins.
• If you haven't done so, start at least a couple of articles. They need only be stubs, but an indication that you can and will contribute content (instead of just modifying it) will help win over those that consider that to be a priority.
• Finally, being nominated by someone else makes it go a little smoother, because the nominator can bring a little cache and elaborate on the reasons adminship should be granted. An editor review may be a good way to catch someone's attention. On the other hand...I'd be willing to nominate you in a couple of months if I see you've continued your good work and made the learning curve progress I expect. I think you have a pretty good chance of being a sysop if you keep it up. Feel free to contact me to take a more in-depth look if/when you're ready to go again. Cheers, — Scientizzle 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: Since you left the same message to Scientizzle, I thought I would reply in the same section. And also because he pretty much covered everything that I would have said to you and more. One thing I would reiterate is that your answers to the questions were a little weak. I would recommend being a little more clear on what you would like to do if you were an admin. Read some of the old RFAs, both successful and unsuccessful, to see how others are writing up their answers. You're doing fine, I just think it was a bit early for you to submit an RfA and the weak answers that sank your chances of passing. I wouldn't get discouraged though. Just continue what you were doing for a few months and if you are still interested in becoming an admin, I'm pretty sure that your next RfA will pass. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't ignoring your last message--I've just been a tad busy to get to another review...hold tight & I'll get back to you. — Scientizzle 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

...I'm trying to find time to do this today. If I do, I'll get back to you in a few hours. — Scientizzle 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Part deux

Let's see, since July 23...you've gained ~600 edits.

• Keep up the editor assistance work.
• Continue to participate in Project space work (RfD, AfD, IfD and such)...
• ...but don't forget the point of this project--of the ~600 or so edits since I wrote the above, less than 100 are from the main space. Many of these are high-quality edits, to be sure, but don't get so caught up in the bureaucratic processes that you lose sight of why those processes are important, but behind-the-scenes.
• Consider making a (modest) list of some of your finer work. Using my userpage as an example, a selective list of articles you've started or significantly improved can:
  1. be useful to assess someone's encyclopedia contributions in a future RfA
  2. indicate to other editors that you may have a familiarity or some level of experience in a particular content area, facilitating collaboration
  3. be a source of pride and motivation as you take ownership (but not WP:OWNership) of your work
• A random sampling of your recent AfD participation revealed a lot of "per ___" comments. While these aren't inappropriate, they're often to be avoided. In fact, there are a few editors that have very strong opinions against any semblance of "voting" and will not take kindly to simplistic (even if reasonable) yea or nay statements that don't fit their perceptions of proper wiki discussions.
  • Related: as one who closed many dozens of AfDs, it's very useful if everyone weighing in gives a cogent argument for their opinion, especially when there are potentially valid points to support or refute. It's also a good thing if your input indicates that you've done further research to be sure deletion or otherwise is the right choice (such as finding sources or linking to a Google search that comes up empty).
• Your foray into WP:UAA didn't go well...Though I think you were treated unnecessarily harshly here (and I've soft-{{usernameblock}}ed God-damn-electric1010 (talk · contribs) & Hdhfdgdggd (talk · contribs) because I think they do meet Wikipedia:Username policy's blockable list), the buried point is valid: unless the report is blindingly obvious, it's best to take it up with the account in question beforehand.

Hopefully these points help. Keep up the good work... — Scientizzle 20:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't consider this a grim analysis--these are just a few of you weaker points. I barely glossed over your strong points, which really isn't fair because you've got plenty and have contributed well. I don't doubt that the rest of the community would consider all of your efforts to date to be good-faith and beneficial!

When it comes to editing here, it's important to find a balance for yourself in what contributions fit your personality and strengths. If you spend half your time helping other editors out at editor assistance, that's very valuable. Don't do anything because you think you need to, do it because you want to--we're all volunteers. Find a ratio of main-space and project-space contributions that meets your comfort zone for your donated time and efforts.

And don't worry about making mistakes. It happens. As long as you can demonstrate that you have learned from past mistakes, and will likely do so with (inevitable) future mistakes, then you'll have no problem demonstrating to others that you can be trusted as a valuable collaborator.

As for the list of accomplishments, I understand where you're coming from. Modesty is almost always a virtue. But, in an RfA, the question is there because we want to know what work you take pride in, what work you think is beneficial. It's not so much ego-stroking as a way to gauge the quality, quantity, time and location of your best efforts. When practically necessary, it's much easier to find said work if there's a centralized list of it--in RfA proceedings and in your own editing (I use my list as a reminder of sorts to go back to past articles and continue updating them). Pride in one's work is only a sin when it's coupled with arrogance. Of course, it was only a purely optional suggestion and you needn't do anything with which you're not comfortable. — Scientizzle 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Tell you what...I'm actually quite busy this week and a little concerned that you'd be jumping in a touch too early (it hasn't quite been 2 months since you were snowed), so I'll gladly nominate if you're willing to go slowly here. (As I said way above, 2 months is a minimum and 3 months is a more ideal time frame in which to reapply.)

This is what you should do if that sounds okay:

1. Enable email to your account--no admin should be without an off-wiki contact and we can cover some direct stuff via email.
2. Put together a new set of answers to the 3 basic questions and email 'em to me. They were too weak last time and together we can tweak them. It'll take me until after the end of this week to get to them, I imagine, and it may take another week or so to find time to put together a good nomination.
3. In the mean time, pick an article in the main space and really direct your efforts at improving it. I would expect that the fact that only 21% of your contributions to date have been to the main space (and no article has received more than 6 edits) will be a sticking point for a few at RfA. Spend the next two weeks or so dedicating some time to needy stubs. — Scientizzle 18:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Dave1959

Good catch with the copyvio on Godfrey Mwakikagile.

The user seems like he has good intentions, though, and may benefit from being "adopted" by a more experienced Wikipedia editor.

Guroadrunner 11:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs when speedy

Hi, you made a good question. I don't think so, but wait for a better answer from an admin. Bearian 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CWLI

Re: "Lately, the CWLI tool has been failing to follow through, by returning to the wiki with the suggested revisions. How come?"

Hi Aarktica, I think it is working okay - e.g. just tested it, seemed to add the links okay. Can you maybe be more specific as to what it wasn't doing, and which article(s) were involved? And were you logged in at the time, and was the article semi-protected or protected? In those situations it will suggest links, but if the editor cannot apply them then it cannot save the changes. Of course a software bug is definitely a possibility! P.s. probably replying on my talk page is best, so that I see the new message notification. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

William Cullen

Thanks - I went back and compared with source. I found a couple of places where sentences match — which I've now changed — but I thought most was OK. If you still have concerns, please give specific instances. Michael Fourman 12:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Covenant College EAR

I followed up. My apologies for not leaving a response. I think the issue is resolved. Think. Qmax 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Bodies Exhibition

Aarktica,

Thanks for trying to help me regarding the Bodies Exhibition page. But all the comments you say were left to help me happened before the NPOV and all seemed to be closed loops. People came, the edited, they left. No one has left a note specifically saying why they left the NPOV. I thought they were supposed to do that? If we don't know what the concern is, and its been there for about a month, are we supposed to take it seriously? Thanks for your help,

Mom de guerre 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

aarktica,

I'm sorry to be so dense, but I'm new at this, so thank you for your patience. You said you saw a comment about weight. I'm looking at the discussion page, is that the right place? I didn't see the comment or a code that you refer to. I just want to make sure I'm looking in the right place and have all the details before I start editing. thank you!

Mom de guerre 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bodies: The Exhibition page. Thank you, I didn't realize there were guidelines. I'll read them and see what else might be contributed for the general section. Mostly, what was new about the exhibits that was not represented on the page could all be categorized under 'criticism'. Instead of taking out the new material, I'll see what to add to the section above. If I have trouble, I hope you don't mind if I come back again.

Mom de guerre 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we make a go of it?

(Fill in your answers & sign...then let me know. I'll transclude it and register the first support! — Scientizzle 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

It's up! Best of luck... — Scientizzle 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: (didn't want to ask it over there, people might get the wrong idea): but I noticed your account was made February 2006, a long time before the first edit with it, and your first edits also seemed rater professional. Did you use another account, or IP, meanwhile? Greswik 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

background

See my EA comment and this. You might want to comment there. Tvoz |talk 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Good luck. Count on my support. AS 001 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)