User talk:Arcticocean

Potential projects/pages

Hello, Arcticocean. You have new messages at Ironholds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The thread appears to be archived. Is this still current? AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification

FYI, see discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re this comment your input is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've commented at the appeal thread. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for checkuser investigation for Iaaasi

Hello AGK,

You told in this SPI case that the proofs of who I suspect are sockpuppets are not worthwhile for an investigation. Recently, User:SamiraJ and User:WestSVK have been blocked on the grounds that they were the sockpuppets of Iaaasi's, which means that Iaaasi has not abdicated from making sockpuppets. Nonethless, I can't unearth more proofs to corroborate my suspicion with. So if you still think the same about this case, please put my proposal in to the archieved writings' chest.

Thanks--Nmate (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do. If you think there has been a fresh bout of socking, you should submit a new investigation. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ACC

Re. CU application, if you have already submitted your application, User:Mlpearc can get your account activated, but you would have to talk to User:Stwalkerster to get the checkuser flag added to your account. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. I had followed the instructions on some on-wiki page that I can't remember, but I'll ask these two users and hopefully somebody can get me up and running. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Carteret, New Jersey

Hi, nice clean-up at Carteret, New Jersey, which I just happened to have watchlisted. If you want to restore that history section, it appears all to be sourced, some of it verbatim, from here. On the topic of clean-up, could I invite you to take a look at Anthropic units and the recent back-and-forth between myself and another editor, and, if you feel so inclined, offer some advice there? I'd be grateful, NP if you have other fish to fry. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the article at Wikipedia:Cleanup, and did a little tidy-up, but the article itself is good so I really only had to do some prose improvements. I'll have a look at Anthropic units presently. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ali55te

I'm not sure why you've blocked and tagged this account, even though the checkuser said it was unrelated to Xebulon? Thanks, Athenean (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I just received an email about this as well. Why was Ali55te blocked, given that they were found to be unrelated? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but they're appealing the block now. I just double checked and confirmed Jdelanoy's findings; technically speaking, they're about as unrelated as it's possible to be. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've placed this unblock request on hold until you can review and provide additional findings. Are you seeing something the other checkusers are not? Kuru (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, everyone. I blocked the wrong account, and didn't even run my own check. Could somebody unblock the account? I'd clear up my own mess, but I'm editing from a mobile today and won't be at a computer until later. AGK [•] 12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was an administrator before for a big online community, sometimes this kind of mistakes can happen. Thank you for response. Ali55te (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies again about that. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck

Haven't talked to you in a while, definitely not as much as I should, but I wanted to wish you the best of luck with this year's Circus/Deathmatch/Whatever. I have no doubt that it will be little more than routine for you. Not for the first time, and I'm sure not for the last, I wish I had your level of patience for process. I'm sure that you are going to do, as you always have, an extremely good job. Trusilver 02:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! Thank you for your kind wishes. You're right that process comes naturally to me: I enjoy running background processes, because I know how important they are in a community and website as large and popular as ours. There are many excellent candidates this year, so I would not be at all unhappy if some of them were appointed and I was not :). I am disappointed that you don't hold admin rights anymore, but Steve Smith's comment that you have at the top of your userpage is an excellent evaluation of the events that led to your desysopping: you certainly always were very principled. Hope things are well with you and yours. Best, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

{Too busy.} AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xebulon/Archive

I think you misinterpreted my comments. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now sorted. Apologies about that - I blocked and tagged the wrong account, so it was just me clicking the wrong "block" link, rather than a case of actual misinterpretation. Perhaps I should leave the administration to our excellent clerks, in future. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Arcticocean! I saw that you were an administrator here, so I was just wondering if you might be able to answer a question I had. The thing is, I'm an admin on a different wiki, and another admin on the same wiki posted a question to the rest of the admins asking if there was a URL that can be used to show any user their current number of edits on the wiki. On our wiki, there's a page called Special:Editcount that conveys that information (I don't think Wikipedia has a page like this though), so another admin advised him to use this URL: http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/Username. That URL would achieve the desired result, but one would have to constantly put the username of the specific user at the end of the URL when posting it on that user's talk page, so my goal was to come up with a way to avoid that; almost to create something you could post on any user's talk page without changing any part of it and still get the desired result. I came up with this: {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}, this way, one could just post the coding on the talk page of the desired user and the returned URL would automatically direct the user to their respective edit count. This worked successfully for every other user whose talk page I tested the coding on (without saving the page, of course); the only problem is that the user he wanted to do this for has an "*" both at the beginning and the end of their username (the second asterisk isn't a problem, just the first), meaning that instead of being returned as:

http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*

it gets returned as:

{{fullurl:Special:Editcount/

• User*}}

and doesn't take anyone anywhere, because it's just the raw coding. So I was just wondering if you knew of any way to circumvent this problem (aside from just telling him to post "http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*" on the user's talk page, which isn't the end of the world, but is, of course, what I was trying to get around in the first place), maybe by putting some other form of coding that I'm not aware of somewhere in the existing coding or something. Any light you may be able to shed on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

69.204.38.3 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is always nice to be greeted as {{BASEPAGENAME}}… You might want to try using urlencode for the username field, to avoid the link being broken when used in conjunction with odd usernames like *Example*. Hope this helps. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that totally fixed the entire problem! Thanks a lot for your help! :D

69.204.38.3 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

HAGGIS :)

		The WikiHaggis
		I hereby award you the WikiHaggis! This means you are slightly nutty, sorta spicy, and maybe resemble stuffed pig intestines. Pass this WikiHaggis on by putting {{subst:WikiHaggis}} on someones talk page!

I know you love the stuff :) (By the way have you seen the new MedCab? (this is the old MedCab) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Haggis is disgusting. Ooh, I haven't. I'm going to go explore. Thanks for the WikiHaggis! AGK [•] 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warrior

Hi AGK. Do you think you can take a look at the edit history of editor Tuscumbia here? I find it very unusual that this editor's activity level suddenly increased when another editor, Dighapet, was most recently topic banned by you, and it is very interesting that both editors engage others with the same attitude and wording so as to suggest that there is some coordination taking place, if not outright puppeting. I do not want to take this to arbitration because it has already resulted in this editor being topic banned for two lengthy terms but, just like Dighapet, every single edit of another editor is met with a swift revert, a snide remark here and there, and unrealistic and over burdensome requests that guarantee that any discussion will end up running in circles and result in eventual failure. I thought the second topic ban would help him change his attitude somewhat but I fail to discern any difference from his past editing habits. After almost two years of editing, just read the first line of this article he recently created: Vrezh and my comments on the talk page. Even when problems have been highlighted on the talk page and appropriate tags are added, Tuscumbia still chooses to remove this on the very false statement that no such concerns have been expressed on the talk page. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion with another editor when all they seem capable of is making personal insults and derision (see this latest one here) and actually boasting of their ability to prevent any progress from taking place. Regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What?! :) My activity level "suddenly increased"? Have you bothered to really check my contributions? Marshall, unlike you I have kept and keep contributing to Wikipedia with real content creating well sourced articles every week if not every day. AGK, please do look into my history of contributions and compare to any editor editing any topics and please do look at the article 1990 Tbilisi-Agdam bus bombing and its talk page where Marshall keeps edit-warring in the absence of valid arguments and sources requested. How easy it must be for you, Marshall, to just complain to administrators instead of coming up with sources. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

^ Case in point. Derision all around. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your "quiet" revision of the comment before you even read my response, Marshall: I did respond to you on the talk page with explanation that the wording was quoted from the book. Tuscumbia (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I ask in my talk page header that all requests for administrator action are referred to an appropriate noticeboard, and never to my talk page. Marshal, please submit a request for arbitration enforcement in the ordinary way if there is problem with an editor's conduct; I cannot accept these requests directly. Thank you, and regards to you both, AGK [•] 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)