User talk:Arcticocean/Archive 2018

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Archive 2018

Archive 2019

Archive 2020

→

Archive 2023

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

you were here

I saw you! that's all :) Privatemusings (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Classroom

I've been clearing up some of my subpages and I came across this on my userbox subpage. I vaguely remember taking AGK way back in the day. A little under ten years ago... I guess I shouldn't call myself the 'new guy' anymore. Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Medcom box

Template:Medcom box has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:Missing Wikipedians

I've added your name to the list linked above due to inactivity. Please remember to remove yourself if you return. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Request

Template:Request has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Thanks, Callanecc! Not really back, but still around :). AGK [•] 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Very glad to hear that. Any chance you could help with a template you worked on? Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Updating Template:Ds/talk notice to make it clearer. If you think you can be of any help, please email me for more details of how it should probably go. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My ArbCom election votes

Without putting together a full guide, I did want to publish my candidate assessments. Hopefully floating voters, inexperienced participants, and interested bystanders find this useful:

• Premediated Chaos: Support
• KrakatoaKatie: Support
• RickinBaltimore: Support
• The Rambling Man: Oppose. Most capable in the past, but lost the temperament needed for this role. The 'kiss' valediction in particular, for me, writes off TRM.
• Opabinia regalis: Support.
• Alex Shih: Oppose. Appears to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of ArbCom.
• SMcCandlish: Support.
• Callanecc: Support.
• Sir Joseph: Oppose. Quixotic. They will distract and delay the committee's work, or arbitration will eat them alive. In either case, despite the enthusiasm I do not think this editor can be of service.
• BU Rob13: Oppose. I do not know much at all about this editor, so cannot support. However, reviewing their history and candidacy leaves me uncomfortable for reasons I don't think I can explain. I was pushed to oppose from general reluctance to elect this candidate, at least this year and until they have further history.
• Worm That Turned: Support.
• Mailer Diablo: Support.

Regards,
AGK [•] 22:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Community article probation

Template:Community article probation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. : Noyster (talk), 20:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding new important factor to Infobox pageant titleholder

I Appreciate your contributions, However When I see the Template:Infobox pageant titleholder it is a great work but still miss an important factor witch is the measurements, the mensuration of the pageant's body is a primary think in models, pageants ex. Thanks

requesting advice on how to deal with another editor who deletes my edits but won't engage in a conversation

Dear AGK,

I have tried adding text to an article about a very interesting topic in physics (I'm a university physics professor). There were recently two papers published in a very reputable physics journal (Physics Review) on the subject and I thought it worth updating the Wikipedia article on that subject. When I made the edit, another editor nearly immediately jumped in a deleted my edit, saying that "Original research is not appropriate for inclusion in either article space or talk space" By looking for the term "original research" on Wikipedia I came to understand this to mean unpublished work. Of course, this was not unpublished. When I tried using the talk page of the article to help the other editor understand the error, I received no response for a couple of days. So I rewrote my edit, emphasizing that I was reporting on two articles recently published in Phys Rev. Again the editor deleted my edit but did not justify the action, rather chided me for reposting. My attempt to engage on the article's talk page went unanswered again, so I tried the other editor's talk page, but received a rebuke there as well.

Here is the article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

You can see some of what happened on the last section of the talk page ("Latest information on the A-B effect").

You can see a second editor added a brief note affirming the same (incorrect) assertion about "original research". This second editor has also not responded to my attempts to engage.

So I am left befuddled. I believe that my attempted edit is entirely proper and unobjectionable, but my attempt to help the other editor see this has not met with any sort of conversation.

I'm new to Wikipedia and have not figured out how to resolve this. I am certain that anyone who reads that article would want to know about the two new papers directly related to the subject. I would be happy to learn how to proceed.

Best regards, Murray Daw

Edit rollback

Hi AGK, I’m writing to ask you to review my contribution and subsequent rollback in its entirety.

When I first read the wiki entry “solstice” and was confused by a particular paragraph.

I rewrote the paragraph so as to be much more understandable.

The reason given for the rollback was:

“not an improvement; the su[n] is never directly overhead outside the tropics—clarification is needed for the 2 days inside tropics”

If you read my final edit you can see that indeed I state explicitly that the sun is overhead only within the tropics. As to overall clarity of my contribution—and after its rollback—I ask you to be the judge.

It is disheartening to know that contributions can be swept aside so casually—and for the wrong reasons—and disregarded completely by a single person with power to do so. It makes potential contributors & editors think twice before spending valuable time to edit.

I presume you have access to my last edit so I will not reproduce it here.

Re. my credentials, I was a technical writer in Silicon Valley for 15 years covering many complex topics.

I welcome your comments.

Thank you, Dave C. (Wiki name “Motherships”) 99.189.168.179 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

{{WikiSky}}

Would you be willing to set edit & move protection to Template protection ? This will still cover the Highly-visible template issues. There's this discussion that I would like to action. Thanx for your time. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime: No problem.  Completed. AGK [•] 10:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

belated welcome

Hi. Nice to see you back. I hope you stay for a very verrrry long time. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Usernamekiran! AGK [•] 17:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. Niki Moore (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Niki. I see that you copied this query to a number of editors, and one has now answered at your talk page. Let me know if you need any more help. AGK [•] 20:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

How can you block me ?

 Remark: Content removed – banned user evasion. AGK [•] 15:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Thor's Axe

Hey AGK. At User talk:Thor's Axe the block notice says indef, but the block itself is only for 31 hours. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, it's good to see you back!.. Now I have someone to bother whenever there is an interesting issue with the discretionary sanctions alerting system. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Re-blocked to indef. Thanks on both fronts – good to be back! AGK [•] 18:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If you were going on this edit as a reason to believe socking, you should be aware that the reference to User:Bonadea in the edits summary suggests that User:Thors' Axe1 could be a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. He has been joe-jobbing at noticeboards lately to get others in trouble. I have no idea about Kapilitoo. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi AGK. I've just been cleaning up some Nsmutte mess. So I can tell you per CU that Thor's Axe and Thor's Axe2 are one user, while Thor's Axe1 and Thor's Axe3 are an Nsmutte joe-job. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

And Kapilitoo is another Nsmutte joe-job. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion there - are there any others you'd like me to check? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait, there is a banned serial sockpuppeteer who watches for users recently blocked for socking in order to create fake socks of that blocked user? It is still so strange to me that there are people wasting their time like that… I think we're all good, @Zzuuzz – I only found Thor's Axe and Kapilitoo. Many thanks, AGK [•] 00:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If we no longer believe User:Thor's Axe is a sockmaster (except for Thor's Axe2 which has no edits) is the way clear to lift his block, since his original 48 hours have expired? By the way, User:Thor's Axe5 looks to be another Nsmutte sock. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain about numbers 1, 3, and 5. I am also certain that number 2 was created by the original while they were editing, in the style of a - so far - legit alt account. So my recommendation would be that socking accusations against Thor's Axe are nullified - unblocked if you think that's appropriate given other things. I'm happy to follow up unblocking #2. What may interest you is that there are two LTAs using precisely this MO. The other is Architect 134. They typically both follow AN3 and cause trouble accordingly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and Zzuuzz: First, I consent to the indef. being dropped down at any point if we think that action will be effective enough. However, my re-block of Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was initially precipitated by the evasion through Kapilitoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is that account also forgery? AGK [•] 14:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely Nsmutte. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Completed – unblocked. Thanks both, AGK [•] 15:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi I just wish to clarify a few things. I understand this is a broad for the discussions between administrators, but I still think it would be ideal to let you know my situation. I started my first edit on 23rd September and created my account by that time. Then out of curiosity, and after being warned for edit warring, I was thinking about setting up a back up account (by that time I was not aware that multiple account abusing was prohibited), and that one is Thor's Axe2. I am okay if you wish to keep only one account for me. But my using the same user name as Thor's Axe 1, 3, 5and user Kapilitoo is completely coincidental. When I registered the account I was not given a suggestion to read the names of registered users. And I used to think there were many users and it is fine to have two user names almost exactly the same (which led to confusion in this case). Thor's Axe (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There was also some debate between me and administrator Kleuske on the talk page on Transition..... I admit that I was rather emotional by that time and was not very clear about the rules. My last few edit based on the suggestion of user Simonm223, and I did a vision of the links. Thor's Axe (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page - AGK [•] 13:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for TheOdd1sOut

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TheOdd1sOut. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Zoom (talk page) 17:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank You!

Dear AGK,

Thank you for approving my permission for Rollback rights. It was highly appreciated and would allow me to extensively fight vandalism.

Regards! Denver| Thank you (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: note at page protection for Nilo Cruz article

What could you possibly be talking about? The source says Cruz is “openly gay”; the anonymous users want the info removed; I and others want the properly sourced info to stay. You seem confused about who is saying what. This is a blatantly obvious case of homophobic vandalism. And, btw, you might have noticed that the vandals have refused to go to the talk page. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: Noted, thanks. The lead still does not seem like an appropriate place for that content. AGK ■ 10:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

3rr closure

Could you clarify why you closed the FoLandra report as No Action? –dlthewave ☎ 16:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dlthewave. The 3-revert rule (3RR) is not quite so clear-cut when it applies to the editor's own discussion.The editor raised similar questions to those already under discussion on the article talk page. Additionally, when the comment made its way into the talk page (on the occasion posting it was not reverted), other editors readily engaged with it. I was not convinced that the talk page comment content was a clear violation of WP:BLP, and therefore I declined to apply the 3RR to the editor's conduct in forcing the comment through to the talk page. AGK ■ 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That seems reasonable, especially since the editor hasn't been active since. –dlthewave ☎ 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Rise of Macedon

Thank you for locking History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). As you are well aware, the articles concerning the Greece-Macedonia border region are contentious and subject to the influence of real-world events. A long-standing consensus has existed (since about 2010) to leave the word "Greek" out of the first sentence of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Rise of Macedon, and History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Almost immediately after the controversial results of the name referendum in Macedonia a week ago anonymous IPs and single-purpose accounts began showing up at Rise of Macedon to add "Hellenic" or "Greek" against consensus in the first sentence. After Rise of Macedon was locked for 4 days, these IPs and SPAs moved to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). After you locked that article, they have now moved back to Rise of Macedon. I suspect that there is off-site canvassing going on since both of the last two SPAs have made a couple of edits on other pages and then zeroed in on Rise of Macedon with virtually identical edits on Talk:Rise of Macedon--original research without any accompanying discussion. This seems to be part of a concerted effort at History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Rise of Macedon based on reactions to real-world events. Would you consider locking Rise of Macedon as well (of course at the consensus wording that doesn't include "Greek" or "Hellenic" in the first sentence)? I seem to recall that at some point in the past we were on opposite sides of a Macedonian-related issue. I'm sure that you recognize the value of a consensus that has survived since 2010 in this contentious region. Sadly we can almost set our watches by real-world events and see the anonymous IPs and SPAs arrive at Macedonia-related articles within the first 24 hours. I would appreciate your consideration of this complex attempt by potential sockpuppets and canvassed SPAs to subvert WP:CONSENSUS without accompanying Talk Page engagement. Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, TaivoLinguist. You've mentioned they, which I am taking to mean a constant set of users. I would be inclined at this stage to recommend an enforcement action under WP:BALKANS#Standard discretionary sanctions. You can request enforcement action at WP:AE. This advice is given without having reviewed your account for accuracy. AGK ■ 20:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. --Taivo (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hafarah

Hiya. I didn't knowingly revert any closure of the Hafarah - or any other - AfD. Sorry if that has happened somehow - an edit conflict perhaps? Close away, please do! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking GlobalPoliticalCulture for disruptive editing (again). Could you also block WarrenSanders2020, their sock? Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 16:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Master and sock blocked indefinitely. AGK ■ 17:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Alert template

The only alert template is Template:Ds/alert.In your view this is not enough to make the user aware of 500/300 restriction. If yes what template you propose to use?--Shrike (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I have started WP:ARCA about this matter [1]--Shrike (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)