User talk:Aarktica

This user may have left Wikipedia. Aarktica has not edited Wikipedia since only 1 edit after 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

== Religious democracy ==

Thank you for your comment. Farhoudk 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

Hi, don't worry about it - the system is over complicated. {{

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Categorising articles- see all the uncategorised articles in
  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
  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.

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)[reply]

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. --Kbh3^rdtalk 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Scientizzle 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you have warned the

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:

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.

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:

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.

The main downsides of the tool as it currently stands are:

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).

I hope that somewhere in there I have answered your question :-) -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

WP:EAR to involve other editors. Sbowers3 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No worries, then. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. Since your account has been inactive for some time, it has been removed from

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a

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

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 Wikipedia: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.

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by