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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've unhatted the evidence. Regards, AGK [•] 00:11, 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)
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
toof 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 allow
ingthe flippant reversal of administrator actions.
- I hope the community reacts to this principle by reversing the disruptive tendency of recent years to allow
- Nobody Ent 23:39, 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)