User talk:Aarktica

== Religious democracy == Thank you for your comment. Farhoudk 07:54, 28 March 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: 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)
 * 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 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.

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. --Kbh3rd talk 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never...
after the question on your talk page. Don't forget to edit your userpage and tell us a bit about yourself...

Happy editing! &mdash; Scientizzle  &mdash; 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: 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: The main downsides of the tool as it currently stands are: I hope that somewhere in there I have answered your question :-)  -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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).

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)

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)

YOU ARE WELCOME!
You are very welcome for the support. You have plenty of experience, and the message you sent me shows me that you are very responsible and get along well with other users. I am honored to have supported you. I'm looking forward to working with you on various Wikipedia projects in the future. --bobsmith319 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Barone Article
Hello, Aarktica.

Thank you for weighing in on the Richard Barone article, and its inappropriate COI tag. I appreciate your help. Could YOU either be the third opinion, or aid in getting one? As you can see from the discussion associated with the article, the tagger has been harsh in appraising my help on the page, and I would be more comfortable leaving this to more capable hands. Frankly, I feel the tagger was attempting to discredit the subject, as the page history shows.

Again, much appreciation for your valuable input. Poptopics 05:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)poptopics

It wasn't me
Hi, Aarktica. You left a note on my talk page about "my" EAR. I would thank you for your assistance except that it was't me who asked for assistance. It was Lostinlodos who requested assistance. I posted a reply telling him how he could create his sandbox and suggesting that he create his new articles there. Thanks anyway. Sbowers3 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Tollywood, that explains the confusion. Well, your comment helped a little bit, but the articles (now two) could use quite a bit of help. As I mentioned initially I came across Tollywood via vandalism patrol. I know nothing about the article, but I saw something that was messed up. The title is Tollywood but the lead sentence is "Telugu Cinema refers to the Telugu film industry." So the lead paragraph needs a rewrite so that the title and bolded word are the same. But just now I discovered it is even worse. There is an article named Telugu cinema and its lead sentence is exactly the same as Tollywood's. In fact, the two articles are largely the same. They should be merged and then a redirect added from one to the merged article. All of this is beyond my skills. (My technical skills are fairly good, but my writing skills are not entirely satisfactory.) And I know nothing about the subject, so I hope you will take the ball and run with it - or repost to WP:EAR to involve other editors. Sbowers3 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a merge tag to both articles and started a discussion in Talk:Tollywood. You might check that I did it correctly. I'll update the EAR request. Sbowers3 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aggrotech
It wasn't a test edit (I did make a few mistakes when I first did it.) I made a redirect because there are a lot of pages that link to aggrotech as the genre they are in. Since the aggrotech page no longer exists, I think it should at least redirect somewhere. The discussion for deletion said that the best term for aggrotech was Hellektro. Hellektro redirects to aggrotech. Another term is Harsh EBM. There is no page on Harsh EBM, but there is one on EBM... which is why I redirected to EBM. Aside from that, I've made a few minor changes on wikipedia, and don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm new and don't know what I'm doing. I'll chalk it up to a mistake. Let me sum up. Aggrotech needs to point somewhere, or it needs to be removed from all the pages that link to it. If I'm wrong in this, please direct me to the *appropriate* help page. Ryan Brady 00:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Farce Live
You should be informed that Air Farce Live is now a TV series airing in Canada on the CBC national network and is now much, much more important than the comedy album the name was previously attached to. Please make the Air Farce Live article the article about the TV series without the redirect to the Air Farce Live (TV series). Steelbeard1 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Air Farce live talk page talks about the TV show, but the article name is incorrect now about the comedy album. Can this be changed? Steelbeard1 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: EAR ABBA/Anni-Frid Lyngstad
Hi. Me again, the guy who - against better judgment - decided to make a serious attempt to create a decent ABBA/solo discography. Just in case you've got nothing better to do; forget about what I said about that die-hard ABBA fan User:Jannerobert mysteriously disappearing - he's back. With a vengeance. He's even got a pal with him this time (80.217.94.57), or could they possibly be the same guy.....? As I said; only if you've got nothing better to do.

Cheers,

Dreamer.se 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)dreamer.se

Test on Crumpet
you said my test on the page Crumpet worked, but it had been deleted. what does that mean? 74.160.99.126 19:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)scubadiver1411

Editor review
Hey there. I left a short – and probably not too helpful – editor review for you. Cheers! – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey
Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bodies The Exhibition Page
Hello Aarktica,

Thanks again for your pointers back in September for the Bodies The Exhibition page. Yes, I was delinquent in going back and editing down the Controversies section. But as I go back in to do it now, it seems that most of the whole page has disappeared! It is simply a basic description of the show. Is that how Wikipedia works? I thought contributors were supposed to log their edits? I'd like to replace some of the material, as the controversies around these displays are definitely a part of their history now. What would you advise?

I hope you get this. Quite frankly I can't remember if this is how I sent you my request before or not. Sorry again for my incapability with this.

Regards, 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Mom de Guerre Yes, thanks for your gentle reminder in the EAR regarding what I need to do, and I will go in and pare it down. The content there was all well documented so I don't think that was the problem. I will try to replace the section and make it shorter, more in line with the basic info section. I looked through the history file and there is no record of who made the change. The only other person recorded to have made changes after me is an FShiheen and he was adding to the discussion. My main frustration is that whomever I am 'working with' on this article doesn't seem to want to discuss. I am highly suspicious that the changes are being made for marketing reasons. Is there another way to find out who 'recklessly' deleted, rather than edited, a whole well documented section? If I have that information then maybe we can put this article to rest. Thanks again Aarktica -- Mom de guerre (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Welcome back, Aarktica. I'm curious, do you think my signature looks better with the changes you made to it? ;) – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, then. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey on gender
Hi! I'm Liria Veronesi (User:Akoha77) and, together with Paolo Massa (User:Phauly), I'm starting an empirical research on "Gender and votes in requests for adminship". For this reason, we need to know the gender of Wikipedians who were candidated to become admins.

We tried looking for the templates User:UBX/male and User:UBX/female but only 4 admins use it. We also used the API for getting the gender field in the profile but, out of 1744 admins, only around 400 have filled this field. But we would benefit from a larger coverage, i.e. possibly knowing the gender of 100% of candidates.

So, after asking for advise to 3 admins and receiving 2 positive replies (1 and 2), we decided to try to ask directly to Wikipedians.

Thus, would you be so kind to write your gender [Male / Female / Other], together with a text comment if you want, on my talk page at User_talk:Akoha77? If you prefer to send me this information privately, you can send me an email, the information will be kept confidential and never shared.

Thanks! Akoha77 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor assistance list
Hello. Since your account has been inactive for some time, it has been removed from Editor assistance/list. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list. You are, of course, welcome to re-add yourself to the list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 22:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Nomination of Spike Jones (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spike Jones (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Spike Jones (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beerest355 Talk 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brett favre


Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing.

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. agt x 21:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)