User talk:Arcticocean

Old messages are at User talk:AGK/Archive.
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is quickest for having pages undeleted.
E-mail me at Special:EmailUser/AGK.
Click here to talk. Talkbacks are fine with me.

It is Friday

I got the appeal ready and saved in a text file to post it. You said Friday tentatively so I wanted to ask you before acting. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still need a couple more days to finish reviewing your record. Is that okay? AGK 11:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Found anything in my history that I need to be concerned with other than the 9 revert case and mentioning peoples nationalities? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't definitively make up my mind about your editing history. I think I'd have to hear what the other uninvolved editors have to say on the appeal thread about your editing before opining one way or another. AGK 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ok. I will open a new section in AN [1] soon. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's done. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign yesterday. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you changing your opinion on me as you had a stronger approach to my case in the last month? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at the AN thread. AGK 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

I thought you might want to know a few updates on the case:

• Two parties had a letter to the editor published in the American Statistician regarding an error in the Morgan et al. paper, which is pivotal to the case. It should move the case along, but...
• One party refuses to have a real-time mediation on IRC, Skype, etc. which I think would be very helpful.

Andrevan@ 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying in turn to the points:

• That's very good to hear. Maybe the case isn't as intractable as it once appeared, but I think we may be foolish to expect a resolution soon. No reason why mediation can't proceed, though.
• The medium by which mediation is conducted shouldn't matter terribly. Not using a real-time forum just means that the discussion proceeds slower, but, as this dispute is marching to a slow beat, again, that shouldn't make much of a difference. Don't forget that some people just distrust real-time things like IRC, and ultimately that has to be respected. Could you maybe try e-mail instead? Not so real-time, but not as slow-paced as on-wiki either.

AGK 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about your advise

Noting your comments on AE, AGK, I have to inquire why would you advise someone banned from doing so on such matters to file an AE request? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that he was banned. AGK 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough; but you are aware now (see the link to the decision on my comment)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I am aware now, as you have just told me. I agree with your comments at AE, and I certainly would have advised Piotrus differently than I did had I then been aware that he was topic-banned so. AGK 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrightie, thank you for the prompt clarification. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my email? I hope it has clarified the issue. If there is still something that has not been clarified, please do let me know. Once again, thank you for your advice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did get your e-mail, yes; I think I'm convinced that you are entitled to post to AE on the topic you did. Though that shouldn't matter terribly, because I am still not having much to do with this matter (preferring to leave it to other administrators at this point). AGK 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My appeal

Hello! I do not know how to act as my appeal was archived by MiszaBot II without any result :). Can you suggest anything? Aregakn (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any? Aregakn (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for a few days. Where did you file the appeal, precisely? And did anybody comment on it? AGK 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This one [3] :). I know you'll smile too, when you see it. Aregakn (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and copy the request from the archive and paste it back onto AE. It shouldn't have been archived without a resolution. AGK 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On ANI it is written, that it also should be deleted from the Archive, but there are not any directions on the AE page. SHould I leave it in the Archive? Aregakn (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. No, don't leave it in the archives; cut it out, noting in the edit summary why you are doing so. AGK 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Well, hope I did the right thing in the right manner. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing from a mobile device at present so I'll check over it when I'm next on a PC. But I'm sure it's fine. AGK 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has closed it as unsuccessful. I cannot understand why I have to apply to ArbCom for this little issue. Aregakn (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, is this correct or the administrators notification board or somewhere had to be posted of the case and called to participate? Aregakn (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Busy for a few days

Sorry to those of you who have left me talk page messages and e-mails. I'll reply to you all within two or three days. Sorry for the delay in the interim. AGK 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now all caught up, I think. AGK 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Public eye

"Not one person brought this into the public eye until today" (you said this on Giano's talk page). I'm not sure how you define "public eye", but I did post to TT's talk page after the mass nominations (see here), and there was an earlier ANI thread before today, so I don't think you are quite right in what you said there. As far as I can tell, this is a problem that arises when people spot one problem and do an audit to find more potential problems (fine) and then engage in mass nominations (not best practice) rather than discussing the issues first (best practice) to find a more efficient way of dealing with things. I've also commented in a DRV recently (about a copy-paste userfication), which looks to me like another example of sticking to the letter of process, rather than people co-operating to sort things out. Anyway, I'm not going to be around for a few days, so wanted to point this out to you and forewarn you in case you post something that needs a reply from me. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was exaggerating a little. Though I didn't see any sign of it, I knew that the complaint would have been brought up at some point recently. What I meant was that the matter had not received attention of any high-profile variety; and indeed, it probably only did yesterday because Giano was screaming so loudly. I didn't mean to play down your involvement or attempts to guide this situation towards a more harmonious course; I simply wasn't aware of them. Regards, AGK 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|TreasuryTag}} ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TT. I've replied on your talk page. AGK 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|TreasuryTag}} ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. I've got your talk page on my watchlist so I'll reply to any comments you have, though a {{talkback}} is always a useful reminder in case I overlook something :). Regards, AGK 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

I have begun thread you may be interested in, here.  Giacomo  18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. I always thought he was a sensible bloke. I'd like to hear from him at the ANI thread before throwing my peanut, though I've made a preliminary comment there to agree that his use of rollback tools seems questionable. AGK 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arcticocean. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Drama llama

dramadramadrama --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, does blocking Giano result in a huge kerfuffle? I hadn't noticed. That's a shame, because doubtless that'll obscure the fact that he's been acting silly. AGK 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about Giacomo that drives normally sane administrators to do incredibly silly things. You have debased the entire rationale for your blocking of Giacomo by gratuitously insulting another editor on Giacomo's talk page.[4][ That you later claim you do not mean it does not mitigate the statement in the first place. You should know better than to make a personal attack against another editor (even one you deny that you mean) immediately after blocking someone for making that very same personal attack. I am disappointed in you, AGK. Risker (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem less than professional to make what you cannot but know will be a contentious block, add a pointy jab of your own devising (See Risker's diff above) and then just shut down for the duration. Bielle (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's called seeking the limelight. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as the person AGK was directing the comment to, I could see that he was clearly jesting, and making the remark to try and prove a point. Even if he wasn't, it wasn't a personal attack because, for one thing, I didn't even feel attacked. Aiken ♫ 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, we expect better of an administrator than to block someone and then immediately make a pointy comment, which could be interpreted in several ways, but that clearly rubs salt in the wound of blocking. We expect better of an administrator than to make a block that he fully expects to be controversial and then immediately log out. We expect better of administrators than to provide those who say administrators are immune from being disciplined than to provide the detractors with "twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one" to illustrate the point. Risker (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I know all of that, and even suggested some of it myself. My point is, his comment to me was not a personal attack and I don't think he should be reprimanded for it. The blocking and leaving, in what was obviously going to controversial, was poorly thought out. Aiken ♫ 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Risker, there is such a thing as making a point. I clearly did not what I said in any way mean it; the phrase was used by way of illustration. Giano, conversely, used it in anger. I can't help but think that you aren't looking at the bigger picture, and I resent that more than I can say. In future I will ramble on at length to explain the basics of why using the word 'odious' is inappropriate, and thereby look like a rule-bashing plonker.

  As for you David: if you have nothing sensible to add, keep quiet. AGK 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you have properly reflected on my message, AGK. I have responded by email, as I do not think there is benefit in continuing this discussion here. Risker (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Email received, and a short reply sent. AGK 09:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• :-) Risker (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked GiacomoReturned

Per my unblock rationale, "No discussion found, thus no consensus, and blocking admin was involved in discussion leading to block - "odious" is used by WP, so not forbidden." Since you were involved in the heated discussion on GR's talkpage you were not the appropriate person to place a block without first gaining a consensus, and preferably referring the matter for another admin to action (or otherwise). I would also note, per the comment at the same talkpage, that "odious" as a term has been used by WP to refer to a type of editor (and you might be aware that some editors have been noted as being "toxic", and no action being taken). Under the circumstances I have unblocked GiacomoReturned. I shall be noting my actions and rationale at ANI, where you may wish to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that you were involved enough to disqualify you, but I have reviewed and I don't see Giano's conduct to have been particularly hostile for him or within community standards. There's a wide band between unhelpful and clearly blockable incivility; he was slightly into the grey area, but not (that I can tell) anywhere near the line we normally start issuing warnings or blocks for.

I know that Giano pushes buttons a lot, but that doesn't mean we have to zap him extra hard for any infraction.

My opinion, at least. I hope it's useful or helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GWH: good points, thank you. My point has been, and still is, that Giano's comments were blockable relative to how we expect a typical editor to behave. As Giano usually has to do a lot worse to get blocked, the thinking has been that 'odious' is "for him" quite tame, and that he thus doesn't deserve blocking. As per usual, Giano gets special treatment; and too many administrators, for reasons that escape my understanding, are willing to oblige.

LHvU: What on earth do you mean by "'odious' is used by WP"? In no sense is it acceptable to call another editor 'odious'. I simply cannot comprehend how this situation has proceeded. AGK 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He is probably referring to the fact that the sentence "Some editors are so odious that not one of the n administrators will unblock them" existed on WP:Banning policy from July 2005 to August 2006, as pointed out on Giano's talk page. kthx, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I have posted a question addressed to you on your thinking surrounding the Giano block in the current ANI discussion. I am genuinely interested in why you thought your actions were wise and in the best interests of calming down the broader issue around the treatment of RAN. I posted the question at ANI rather than here as I think it relates to an issue which is of interest and relevance to the broader community. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there[5]. For the record, I think your question was a sensible one; as much as I disagreed with the argument you made, I wouldn't agree that your comment constituted grandstanding. AGK 14:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arcticocean. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Over

Sandstein just closed the appeal as unsuccessful. It's time for me to give up on Wikipedia as I promised before. I see how Wikipedia is flawed in this matter and that it's open to exploitation for their personal agendas. It's really troublesome that people who have no idea on the subject will come to Wikipedia to get some information on that subject after he just had a conversation with his friends and someone mentioned it. He will look at a picture while reading about genocides in history with a caption saying "Armenian Genocide". The picture will imply to him that the soldiers posing are Ottoman and the dead bodies are Armenian. Expectantly, he'll have no idea that the uniform have certain technicalities that makes them non-Islamic and that they're Russian uniforms as well as Russian soldiers. The problem that makes Wikipedia dangerous is that he will believe in what he saw and hardly ever feel the need to question it. I want to thank for your past interest in my case and wish you well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page Spero News

I disagree with the speedy deletion of the page I recently created for Spero News. This page was about a website, true, but it is a news website, and I am not affiliated with it. The site turns up fairly high on Google searches for certain news items, and is used as a source by other sites such as Answers.com. I feel that the public has a right to know who owns this site and what its editorial policies are. I was unable to ascertain the answers to those questions from a thorough examination of the site itself, so I created this Wikipedia page as a stub, hoping that other users would eventually find out and fill in this information. The user who initiated the speedy deletion describes himself as a conservative Christian, which creates a conflict of interest with regard to this deletion, since Spero News itself has a conservative Christian bias.Wwallacee (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation not needed

Hello, I have requested mediation [6] which is accepted. The "problem" :-) is that mediation is no longer needed since we have reached a consensus [7]. What should I do now? Can i cancel it ? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Old messages are at User talk:AGK/Archive.
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is quickest for having pages undeleted.
E-mail me at Special:EmailUser/AGK.
Click here to talk. Talkbacks are fine with me.

It is Friday

I got the appeal ready and saved in a text file to post it. You said Friday tentatively so I wanted to ask you before acting. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still need a couple more days to finish reviewing your record. Is that okay? AGK 11:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks again. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Found anything in my history that I need to be concerned with other than the 9 revert case and mentioning peoples nationalities? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't definitively make up my mind about your editing history. I think I'd have to hear what the other uninvolved editors have to say on the appeal thread about your editing before opining one way or another. AGK 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds ok. I will open a new section in AN [8] soon. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's done. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign yesterday. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you changing your opinion on me as you had a stronger approach to my case in the last month? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at the AN thread. AGK 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

I thought you might want to know a few updates on the case:

• Two parties had a letter to the editor published in the American Statistician regarding an error in the Morgan et al. paper, which is pivotal to the case. It should move the case along, but...
• One party refuses to have a real-time mediation on IRC, Skype, etc. which I think would be very helpful.

Andrevan@ 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying in turn to the points:

• That's very good to hear. Maybe the case isn't as intractable as it once appeared, but I think we may be foolish to expect a resolution soon. No reason why mediation can't proceed, though.
• The medium by which mediation is conducted shouldn't matter terribly. Not using a real-time forum just means that the discussion proceeds slower, but, as this dispute is marching to a slow beat, again, that shouldn't make much of a difference. Don't forget that some people just distrust real-time things like IRC, and ultimately that has to be respected. Could you maybe try e-mail instead? Not so real-time, but not as slow-paced as on-wiki either.

AGK 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about your advise

Noting your comments on AE, AGK, I have to inquire why would you advise someone banned from doing so on such matters to file an AE request? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that he was banned. AGK 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough; but you are aware now (see the link to the decision on my comment)? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I am aware now, as you have just told me. I agree with your comments at AE, and I certainly would have advised Piotrus differently than I did had I then been aware that he was topic-banned so. AGK 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrightie, thank you for the prompt clarification. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my email? I hope it has clarified the issue. If there is still something that has not been clarified, please do let me know. Once again, thank you for your advice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did get your e-mail, yes; I think I'm convinced that you are entitled to post to AE on the topic you did. Though that shouldn't matter terribly, because I am still not having much to do with this matter (preferring to leave it to other administrators at this point). AGK 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My appeal

Hello! I do not know how to act as my appeal was archived by MiszaBot II without any result :). Can you suggest anything? Aregakn (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any? Aregakn (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for a few days. Where did you file the appeal, precisely? And did anybody comment on it? AGK 14:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This one [10] :). I know you'll smile too, when you see it. Aregakn (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and copy the request from the archive and paste it back onto AE. It shouldn't have been archived without a resolution. AGK 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On ANI it is written, that it also should be deleted from the Archive, but there are not any directions on the AE page. SHould I leave it in the Archive? Aregakn (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. No, don't leave it in the archives; cut it out, noting in the edit summary why you are doing so. AGK 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Well, hope I did the right thing in the right manner. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing from a mobile device at present so I'll check over it when I'm next on a PC. But I'm sure it's fine. AGK 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has closed it as unsuccessful. I cannot understand why I have to apply to ArbCom for this little issue. Aregakn (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

AGK, is this correct or the administrators notification board or somewhere had to be posted of the case and called to participate? Aregakn (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Busy for a few days

Sorry to those of you who have left me talk page messages and e-mails. I'll reply to you all within two or three days. Sorry for the delay in the interim. AGK 23:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now all caught up, I think. AGK 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

• Photography: Making money with free photos

• News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Public eye

"Not one person brought this into the public eye until today" (you said this on Giano's talk page). I'm not sure how you define "public eye", but I did post to TT's talk page after the mass nominations (see here), and there was an earlier ANI thread before today, so I don't think you are quite right in what you said there. As far as I can tell, this is a problem that arises when people spot one problem and do an audit to find more potential problems (fine) and then engage in mass nominations (not best practice) rather than discussing the issues first (best practice) to find a more efficient way of dealing with things. I've also commented in a DRV recently (about a copy-paste userfication), which looks to me like another example of sticking to the letter of process, rather than people co-operating to sort things out. Anyway, I'm not going to be around for a few days, so wanted to point this out to you and forewarn you in case you post something that needs a reply from me. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was exaggerating a little. Though I didn't see any sign of it, I knew that the complaint would have been brought up at some point recently. What I meant was that the matter had not received attention of any high-profile variety; and indeed, it probably only did yesterday because Giano was screaming so loudly. I didn't mean to play down your involvement or attempts to guide this situation towards a more harmonious course; I simply wasn't aware of them. Regards, AGK 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|TreasuryTag}} ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TT. I've replied on your talk page. AGK 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|TreasuryTag}} ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. I've got your talk page on my watchlist so I'll reply to any comments you have, though a {{talkback}} is always a useful reminder in case I overlook something :). Regards, AGK 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

I have begun thread you may be interested in, here.  Giacomo  18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. I always thought he was a sensible bloke. I'd like to hear from him at the ANI thread before throwing my peanut, though I've made a preliminary comment there to agree that his use of rollback tools seems questionable. AGK 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arcticocean. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Drama llama

dramadramadrama --MZMcBride (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, does blocking Giano result in a huge kerfuffle? I hadn't noticed. That's a shame, because doubtless that'll obscure the fact that he's been acting silly. AGK 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about Giacomo that drives normally sane administrators to do incredibly silly things. You have debased the entire rationale for your blocking of Giacomo by gratuitously insulting another editor on Giacomo's talk page.[11][ That you later claim you do not mean it does not mitigate the statement in the first place. You should know better than to make a personal attack against another editor (even one you deny that you mean) immediately after blocking someone for making that very same personal attack. I am disappointed in you, AGK. Risker (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem less than professional to make what you cannot but know will be a contentious block, add a pointy jab of your own devising (See Risker's diff above) and then just shut down for the duration. Bielle (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's called seeking the limelight. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as the person AGK was directing the comment to, I could see that he was clearly jesting, and making the remark to try and prove a point. Even if he wasn't, it wasn't a personal attack because, for one thing, I didn't even feel attacked. Aiken ♫ 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aiken, we expect better of an administrator than to block someone and then immediately make a pointy comment, which could be interpreted in several ways, but that clearly rubs salt in the wound of blocking. We expect better of an administrator than to make a block that he fully expects to be controversial and then immediately log out. We expect better of administrators than to provide those who say administrators are immune from being disciplined than to provide the detractors with "twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one" to illustrate the point. Risker (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I know all of that, and even suggested some of it myself. My point is, his comment to me was not a personal attack and I don't think he should be reprimanded for it. The blocking and leaving, in what was obviously going to controversial, was poorly thought out. Aiken ♫ 22:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Risker, there is such a thing as making a point. I clearly did not what I said in any way mean it; the phrase was used by way of illustration. Giano, conversely, used it in anger. I can't help but think that you aren't looking at the bigger picture, and I resent that more than I can say. In future I will ramble on at length to explain the basics of why using the word 'odious' is inappropriate, and thereby look like a rule-bashing plonker.

  As for you David: if you have nothing sensible to add, keep quiet. AGK 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you have properly reflected on my message, AGK. I have responded by email, as I do not think there is benefit in continuing this discussion here. Risker (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Email received, and a short reply sent. AGK 09:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• :-) Risker (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked GiacomoReturned

Per my unblock rationale, "No discussion found, thus no consensus, and blocking admin was involved in discussion leading to block - "odious" is used by WP, so not forbidden." Since you were involved in the heated discussion on GR's talkpage you were not the appropriate person to place a block without first gaining a consensus, and preferably referring the matter for another admin to action (or otherwise). I would also note, per the comment at the same talkpage, that "odious" as a term has been used by WP to refer to a type of editor (and you might be aware that some editors have been noted as being "toxic", and no action being taken). Under the circumstances I have unblocked GiacomoReturned. I shall be noting my actions and rationale at ANI, where you may wish to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree that you were involved enough to disqualify you, but I have reviewed and I don't see Giano's conduct to have been particularly hostile for him or within community standards. There's a wide band between unhelpful and clearly blockable incivility; he was slightly into the grey area, but not (that I can tell) anywhere near the line we normally start issuing warnings or blocks for.

I know that Giano pushes buttons a lot, but that doesn't mean we have to zap him extra hard for any infraction.

My opinion, at least. I hope it's useful or helpful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GWH: good points, thank you. My point has been, and still is, that Giano's comments were blockable relative to how we expect a typical editor to behave. As Giano usually has to do a lot worse to get blocked, the thinking has been that 'odious' is "for him" quite tame, and that he thus doesn't deserve blocking. As per usual, Giano gets special treatment; and too many administrators, for reasons that escape my understanding, are willing to oblige.

LHvU: What on earth do you mean by "'odious' is used by WP"? In no sense is it acceptable to call another editor 'odious'. I simply cannot comprehend how this situation has proceeded. AGK 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He is probably referring to the fact that the sentence "Some editors are so odious that not one of the n administrators will unblock them" existed on WP:Banning policy from July 2005 to August 2006, as pointed out on Giano's talk page. kthx, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi AGK, I have posted a question addressed to you on your thinking surrounding the Giano block in the current ANI discussion. I am genuinely interested in why you thought your actions were wise and in the best interests of calming down the broader issue around the treatment of RAN. I posted the question at ANI rather than here as I think it relates to an issue which is of interest and relevance to the broader community. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there[12]. For the record, I think your question was a sensible one; as much as I disagreed with the argument you made, I wouldn't agree that your comment constituted grandstanding. AGK 14:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arcticocean. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Over

Sandstein just closed the appeal as unsuccessful. It's time for me to give up on Wikipedia as I promised before. I see how Wikipedia is flawed in this matter and that it's open to exploitation for their personal agendas. It's really troublesome that people who have no idea on the subject will come to Wikipedia to get some information on that subject after he just had a conversation with his friends and someone mentioned it. He will look at a picture while reading about genocides in history with a caption saying "Armenian Genocide". The picture will imply to him that the soldiers posing are Ottoman and the dead bodies are Armenian. Expectantly, he'll have no idea that the uniform have certain technicalities that makes them non-Islamic and that they're Russian uniforms as well as Russian soldiers. The problem that makes Wikipedia dangerous is that he will believe in what he saw and hardly ever feel the need to question it. I want to thank for your past interest in my case and wish you well. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page Spero News

I disagree with the speedy deletion of the page I recently created for Spero News. This page was about a website, true, but it is a news website, and I am not affiliated with it. The site turns up fairly high on Google searches for certain news items, and is used as a source by other sites such as Answers.com. I feel that the public has a right to know who owns this site and what its editorial policies are. I was unable to ascertain the answers to those questions from a thorough examination of the site itself, so I created this Wikipedia page as a stub, hoping that other users would eventually find out and fill in this information. The user who initiated the speedy deletion describes himself as a conservative Christian, which creates a conflict of interest with regard to this deletion, since Spero News itself has a conservative Christian bias.Wwallacee (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation not needed

Hello, I have requested mediation [13] which is accepted. The "problem" :-) is that mediation is no longer needed since we have reached a consensus [14]. What should I do now? Can i cancel it ? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)