Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:43, 6 April 2011 editMuZebot (talk | contribs)Bots4,002 edits Thank you notice, courtesy of the 2011 GA backlog elimination drive using AWB← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:25, 16 January 2025 edit undoTulsi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,371 edits →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLove 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="padding-bottom: 0.5em;">
'''Note: If I left a message on your talk page, I'll reply there. If you leave one here, I'll reply here.'''
{{Usertalk bar}}
{{User:AGK/Notice}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
</div>
|minthreadsleft = 0
{{Message}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:AGK/Archive/67 |archiveprefix=User talk:AGK/Archive_
|format=Y
}}{{User:SuggestBot/config
|minkeepthreads=0
|frequency = twice a month
|age=8760
}} }}
<div style="float: right" class="infobox">
<!--- NOTE: New messages below here, please; you're best using the "new section" link instead of editing the whole page. --->
<div class="toctitle">
<p style="text-align: center">
'''Related pages'''
</p>
</div>
* ]
* ()
* ]
</div>__TOC__


== Wiki FA criteria ==


==Hello, stranger!==
Another SAQ-related issue. At , I argue that "The preface to the list for featured article criteria states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Misplaced Pages articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles . In response to this argument, editors refer me back to the : "Behavioral problems are not part of the featured article criteria, and thus should not be discussed on the main review page. You're welcome to participate in the review, but you must keep your comments there on-topic... Failure to do so will likely lead to your oppose being discounted by the delegates, and continued behavior-related posts will result in your being barred from participation in the review process." AGK, I would appreciate getting a second administrator's opinion as to whether editing process should be considered in the FA decision.] (]) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Arcticocean,


No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones.
: That an article has been recently edited in a disruptive way does not impede on its quality; if it did, with the level of vandalism or nonsense-editing that some articles receive, most FAs would require to be deleted. This applies doubly to articles that only have disruptive talk pages, as then the disruption is even less visible to our readers—although there is a strong argument that it lowers the quality if a user who clicks the 'talk' tab finds screeds of in-fighting. But it is a requirement, even at ] level, that articles be ''stable'', which amongst other things means that there be no ongoing edit warring. So my answer is that an article could not be considered FA quality if it is the subject of a substantial, ongoing dispute or of disruptive or questionable editing that has not been neutralised by administrator intervention. But I would balance that by saying that in most cases, unless there is chronic disruption, behaviour should not be at all as important a factor as the simple quality of the article: it is the ''content'' that matters, and everything else is largely irrelevant unless it actively disrupts the usefulness to our ''readers'' of the article. Tricky question, but I think you're wrong. I also think that Nikkimaria was wrong in their approach to your comment, but that's really not an important issue. Hope this helps. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
::Many thanks for your comments. The page is the subject of "substantial, ongoing dispute," which would not be the case if the editors who owned it allowed others to portray the reasons for which Shakespeare's identity was questioned. Instead, those editors insist that no information on the page can come from any source that they do not define as RS, which is a form of catch-22, because giving credence to the question is considered fringe, and therefore non-RS. So in this case, the behavior (violation of WP:OWN) does have a direct effect on the content, i.e., the usefulness to the readers, thereby justifying the ideology of Misplaced Pages that good process leads to good content (and vice-versa).] (]) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Hello AGK. I happened to notice your above opinion about Nikkimaria's approach to Jdkag's comment. Also I observe that you were one of the clerks for ] so you must know the case well. Sandy Georgia has recently left a note at ] asking me to see if any admin action is needed about the FAC. My impression is that the admin {{user|Nikkimaria}} is generally on the right track with moving FAC comments to the talk page. I've also looked in detail at ]. In my opinion, the goings-on on the FAC talk page are getting into the area where Arbcom thought that action should be taken. I am thinking that one or more editors may need to be banned from both the FAC and its talk page, per the ARBSAQ discretionary sanctions. The desired end-point is (in my view) that the FAC should be able to reach a normal conclusion, untroubled by any of the behavior criticized by Arbcom in their decision. If you think my viewpoint is too activist, perhaps you could add your own comment at ] as to what you think should be done.
:::In case the above is TL;DR here is the paradox I see. The authorship sceptics seem to be saying:
:::#We disagree with the mainstream view of Shakespeare authorship
:::#You can easily see that we are here arguing with you
:::#This shows there is a dispute
:::#Therefore the article is too unstable to become a featured article.
:::I don't believe that Arbcom would have thought this was a reasonable way for editors to participate in the future development of this article. Thanks, ] (]) 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Hi EdJohnston. I did not realise that there had many of the comments on the FAC were combative and intended mainly to continue the disputed and divisions that led to the SAQ arbitration. I also did not realise that Nikkimaria was moving comments to the talk page in the context of those comments having already been made; having learned that, I would agree, Jdkag, with the moving of those comments. The SAQ dispute (and arbitration case) was an unpleasant one, and I very much understand Nikkimaria's desire to prevent the FAC dispute becoming an annexe of the SAQ talk page and other discussions—or a continuation of the sniping between the divisions within the SAQ editors. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm in a bind. The FAC talk is supposed to include "actionable items." Are actionable items that counter the views of the "mainstream" editors disruptive? Nikkimaria did not move my comments because the issue of process had been raised, but because of the view that process was not relevant. The main issue is this: the article is supposed to be about the disagreement with the mainstream view. Currently, it only portrays the belittling attitude that members of the "mainstream" (mainly English Literature professors) have towards the disagreement. The article would be FA material if it at least supplemented the belittling view with accurate coverage of the reasons for which a disagreement exists. WP:OWN currently prevents this (see an example, ). Currently this WP:OWN is justified by claiming the other side is "disruptive." I would counter that this view of editing by the "mainstream editors" violates basic pillars of Misplaced Pages (pillars that were upheld by the Arbcom, not countered in favor of WP:OWN).] (]) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I'm definitely in a bind. Now I've received a warning from ] to which I've responded at ].] (]) 15:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


:You might want to change the target page for the redirect on ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
== E-mail (re: Costmary topic ban) ==
::<small>Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.<br/></small>{{xt|And stay away from noticeboards}} – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) ] 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
== Editor experience invitation ==


Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in ]? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. ] ] 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:<small>There previously was no header, so I've added this one for the benefit of the table of contents. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)</small>
==Welcome back==
{{YGM}}
: {{unsigned|Costmary|20:18, 22 March 2011}}
:: I've responded to you on your talk page. Regards, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this ] for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work!<span id="Saqib:1730576685561:User_talkFTTCLNArcticocean" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] I ]) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
::: Hi AGK, I replied there too. Not sure if I need to tell you here, but doing it this time to be on the safe side - thanks ] (]) 22:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. ] 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
== Busy for a few days ==


== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
{{busy}}
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, ] 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 14:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


== UK Supreme Court case drive == == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
As you may know, the ] has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Misplaced Pages covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including ] UKSC 42 (prenups) and ] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.


</div>
I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->


== Alt account ==
I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Misplaced Pages a credible source for UKSC case notes.


Hey. Is actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, ] (]) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
'''How you can help'''
:Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. ] (]) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::No problem. Better safe than sorry! ] 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


==Happy Birthday!==
*Help me improve this ] based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
{{ombox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|style = background:Darkgreen;border: 1px solid #CC9999;
|text = <span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;color:#FFFF00;">Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the ].</span>--] (]) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
}}


Thanks, {{u|DaniloDaysOfOurLives}}! ] 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, ] 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.


== Hello and welcome back ==
*Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking


Hi there, I hope you’re doing well. I won’t refer by your old username just in case, but it’s good to see you again. I’ve returned to Misplaced Pages in just the last 24 hours after a post on my talk page around a DRN template, which prompted me to look at the state of DRN and I have a few concerns which I believe are shared by others in the community. You’re probably one of the few old guard DR folk around still, and I was reading the RFC from 5 or so years back where MedCom was closed, had a few ideas on improving DR again. Was wondering if you might be willing for a chat some time? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Create new articles for UKSC cases
:Hi again ], appreciate you are likely quite busy, just sending a ping as I’d really value your input. Of course if you aren’t interested please let me know and I’ll be on my way :-) <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Hello and welcome back to Misplaced Pages :). My old username just felt overdue to be changed, but you're welcome to call me what's easiest. I'm excited by your excitement to discuss the dispute resolution processes, but I don't have much current experience with them, and I have almost none of DRN. I'm probably not the best person to be discussing reform, but I will follow any discussions with interest and contribute where I can… ] 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ah, OK good to know re: your name! But alas, DRN is just a small part of the puzzle. It’s re-establishing mediation that I have interest in. I returned because of the state I saw DRN in, and while it really only has one consistent volunteer, I wonder about whether the structure of the noticeboard now (lots of rules and comments only in sections) is off putting for other volunteers to get involved in. Way back when (jeez, DRN is something I created nearly 14 years ago!), I designed it to be sort of a 3o+ but not for massive disputes with many editors - I was actually chatting to ] about my thoughts about what we could look at DR wise and I boiled it down to this:
::*Talk page dispute between two that that need an outside opinion - 3O
::*Simple disputes with a few editors - DRN
::*Complex disputes, or disputes with many involved parties that which need assistance to get to a consensus point / resolve an issue or create a proposal: mediation
::*Disputes where a clear proposal exists and a decision point is needed from outside editors to finalise consensus - RFC
::Some of the concerns around MedCab When it was closed was that it was redundant to DRN and MedCom, I remember discussing at the time the concept that DRN was traffic control/triage, and that the DRN coordinator (a role at the time, which rotated but was often me) could recommend referral of disputes to MedCom when it was judged that was valuable. Mediation could then help resolve the issues (] that I did worked quite well) or boil down issues to a few that could get wider community consensus in an RFC (I did that to some success on an abortion mediation ages ago). I think the concerns around MedCom were when DRN was more successful, but that people felt it was bureaucratic and didn’t accept much cases, and didn’t have teeth. I’d argue the first point can be handled by keeping it sort of like MedCab, but perhaps with the privilege of mediation, and perhaps even community selected mediators (all theoretical), the second point could be addressed by coordination and handover of disputes between volunteers at DRN and whoever coordinates “mediation”, and the teeth component would only be needed in intractable disputes where we could leverage an RFC to create consensus. I think the most common objection I’ve see are that “RFCs work” but they often require a known, agreed on proposal and starting point and this isn’t always there for a content dispute. I’ve also factored in that often, there’s a reluctance for uninvolved editors to wade into controversial content disputes that might be at an RFC. But yeah, those are my rather long winded thoughts. Be keen to get your perspective! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 01:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know the above is massively TL;DR and may not be an interest area of yours but would value your thoughts if you have time at some point! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== Unblock-decline ==
*Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.


{{noping|Renamed user b57b1e6b25176be485b548cf4103dc90}} is a very-L LTA, {{noping|Najaf ali bhayo}} if I recall. One of their patterns is creating an account, making a few of their favorite edits, then playing account-rename games and eventually VANISHing to cover their tracks. ] (]) 22:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*Improve the judgment listings articles: ] ] ]


:Thanks for dropping a block on that account, and I'll think of this if I see similar behaviour again. ] 00:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reading!, Sincerely ] (]) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


== Additional sock ==
== ''The Signpost'': 28 March 2011 ==
You just banned ] and ] for being socks, and I believe they instantly created a new account at ]. ] (]) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


: It's almost certainly ] or ], but they are not posting images of the same footballer and violating the copyright policy in the same manner. There is no need to block them for the time being. Please ask an administrator to block them if they become disruptive. By the way, the two accounts were blocked, not banned: see ] for an explanation. Thanks, ] 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-03-28}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 13-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0126 -->


== A barnstar for you! ==
== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==


{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
{|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;"
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Admin's Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I am flattered of your presence on my unblock request. I really am grateful. Means a lot to me. Lots of love. ]&nbsp;] 13:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
|valign=top|
;Stubs:<!--''']:'''-->
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
|align=top|
;Cleanup
:]
:]
:]
;Merge
:]
:]
:]
;Add Sources
:]
:]
:]
;Wikify
:]
:]
:]
;Expand
:]
:]
:]
|} |}

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on ]. Regards from ] (]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- ] (]) 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

== ''The Signpost'': 4 April 2011 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-04-04}}
</div><!--Volume 7, Issue 14-->
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ] &middot; ] (]) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0129 -->

== ] ==

Since you were appointed as Anonimu's mentor by arbcom, your comment would be appreciated. I'm not quite familiar with this situation. In particular, are the mentorship, 1RR and civility paroles still in effect? ] (]) 14:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

: Thank you for notifying me. I have commented at the AE thread in relation to the merits of the complaint and to whether the mentorship arrangement still applies. With respect to whether the 1RR and civility paroles are in effect, I hardly think they are; 2009 was a long time ago. Whilst procedurally the parole was indefinite, in practice my opinion is that it has expired because no enforcement has ever been made of them since Anonimu was unbanned—and to begin to enforce them now would be grossly draconian. The standard discretionary sanctions under Digwuren are available here, so I say that we place Anonimu 'on notice'; or, if that is found to be unnecessary, simply sanction or block him. ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

== ArbCom clerking ==

I've been lurking around at ArbCom for several months (observing), and would like to indicate my interest in becoming an arbitration clerk to you per the instructions on the ] page. A little bit about myself: I've been around since late 2008 (although my activity picked up about a year ago), making about 9,000 edits that are mostly maintenance (categorization, stub-sorting, new page patrol, rc patrol, and some content contributions including a GA and a couple of DYKs. If you have any questions or concerns, please do feel free to let me know and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. ] <font color="#960018"></font> <small></font>]]</small> 01:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== You've been mentioned ==

Hello AGK. Mbz1 has been referring to a past discussion with you in an enforcement request at ] and at ]. The file where she has preserved your remarks is at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
: And you've also been cited ].

:Considering that your opinion is being used to criticize the actions of Gwen Gale, I hope you did review and that you also sought Gwen Gale's input before issuing your critique. I also hope you noticed that the link Mbz used for "" was by no means an "archive" of . There and elsewhere, many admins supported Gwen Gale's actions.

:], "I disagree with the block and with the continuation of the ANI etc. restrictions. Those sanctions were not warranted—especially as, from what you have told me, I gather that your ~23 Dec 2010 comments were an isolated incident." Mbz1 was to AE w 391 edits there. She's made . I don't think the sanctions were so unwarranted. ] (]) 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

::Betsythedevine, you are providing an absolutely meaningless and what is even worse absolutely misleading information.
::When you are talking about count of my contribution to AE, it should include my contributions only '''before''' my block, not now, when I am defending myself.
::When you are talking about my contributions to AN/I it should include my contributions only for 2-3 months prior to my block, not to say that the count by itself proves nothing. I often make grammar and spelling mistakes, and fix them. Does this count as a contribution?
::Betsythedevine, IMO by providing such biased,meaningless and misleading information you discredit yourself as an impartial witness in my case.
::AGK, ], who was personally involved with me over content dispute, was one of the major players to make me blocked back in December. I hoped that after that we have cleared our disagreements, but it look like I was mistaking. Some users will never change. --] (]) 21:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Apple litigation ==

Hello AGK and thanks for your . I didn't blank or leave out the Apple v Mac case, it was still there, albeit in the footnotes. The change I made by moving the case to the footnotes was to emphasize the conflicts of laws issues re object code between that case and the Computer Edge Pty. Ltd. v Apple case @ footnote 45. In retrospect, perhaps a better edit would have been for me or for you (or whomever) to include the case names in the section on object code conflict of laws. The point is that while the cases do deserve mention in the body of the article as perhaps 4th-level headings for a reader scanning section headings, the content area under which they most accurately fall is the copyrightability of object code, rather than under their own heading under copyright. The cases were and are seminal in conflicts of law in that area, so if you don't have an objection, I'll move the Apple v Mac case back into that section as a sub-paragraph. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! :-) ] (]) 08:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

== Thank you for your participation in the ] ==
<div style="background-color: #F0FFEC; border: 4px solid #107020; width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px;" >
]
]
]

On behalf of ] and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the ]. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
*522 GA nominations were undertaken.
*423 GA nominations passed.
*72 GA nominations failed.
*27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (], at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (], at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were ''significant'' improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at ]. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, ] can always use some feedback at ].

Again, on behalf of ] and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.
</div>

] <small>delivered by ]</small> 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:25, 16 January 2025

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.
Please leave a new message.

Related pages


Hello, stranger!

Hi, Arcticocean,

No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones.

Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, Liz 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You might want to change the target page for the redirect on User:Arcticocean. Liz 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.
And stay away from noticeboards – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) arcticocean ■ 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2010 Shanghai fire

2010 Shanghai fire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in participating here? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this PROMO AUTOBIO for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. arcticocean 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPCGR/Backlog

Template:WPCGR/Backlog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, arcticocean ■ 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alt account

Hey. Is this actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. Spicy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem. Better safe than sorry! arcticocean ■ 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! arcticocean ■ 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arbitration clerks chart

Template:Arbitration clerks chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, arcticocean ■ 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back

Hi there, I hope you’re doing well. I won’t refer by your old username just in case, but it’s good to see you again. I’ve returned to Misplaced Pages in just the last 24 hours after a post on my talk page around a DRN template, which prompted me to look at the state of DRN and I have a few concerns which I believe are shared by others in the community. You’re probably one of the few old guard DR folk around still, and I was reading the RFC from 5 or so years back where MedCom was closed, had a few ideas on improving DR again. Was wondering if you might be willing for a chat some time? Steven Crossin 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi again User:Arcticocean, appreciate you are likely quite busy, just sending a ping as I’d really value your input. Of course if you aren’t interested please let me know and I’ll be on my way :-) Steven Crossin 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello and welcome back to Misplaced Pages :). My old username just felt overdue to be changed, but you're welcome to call me what's easiest. I'm excited by your excitement to discuss the dispute resolution processes, but I don't have much current experience with them, and I have almost none of DRN. I'm probably not the best person to be discussing reform, but I will follow any discussions with interest and contribute where I can… arcticocean ■ 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, OK good to know re: your name! But alas, DRN is just a small part of the puzzle. It’s re-establishing mediation that I have interest in. I returned because of the state I saw DRN in, and while it really only has one consistent volunteer, I wonder about whether the structure of the noticeboard now (lots of rules and comments only in sections) is off putting for other volunteers to get involved in. Way back when (jeez, DRN is something I created nearly 14 years ago!), I designed it to be sort of a 3o+ but not for massive disputes with many editors - I was actually chatting to User:Xavexgoem about my thoughts about what we could look at DR wise and I boiled it down to this:
  • Talk page dispute between two that that need an outside opinion - 3O
  • Simple disputes with a few editors - DRN
  • Complex disputes, or disputes with many involved parties that which need assistance to get to a consensus point / resolve an issue or create a proposal: mediation
  • Disputes where a clear proposal exists and a decision point is needed from outside editors to finalise consensus - RFC
Some of the concerns around MedCab When it was closed was that it was redundant to DRN and MedCom, I remember discussing at the time the concept that DRN was traffic control/triage, and that the DRN coordinator (a role at the time, which rotated but was often me) could recommend referral of disputes to MedCom when it was judged that was valuable. Mediation could then help resolve the issues (Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation that I did worked quite well) or boil down issues to a few that could get wider community consensus in an RFC (I did that to some success on an abortion mediation ages ago). I think the concerns around MedCom were when DRN was more successful, but that people felt it was bureaucratic and didn’t accept much cases, and didn’t have teeth. I’d argue the first point can be handled by keeping it sort of like MedCab, but perhaps with the privilege of mediation, and perhaps even community selected mediators (all theoretical), the second point could be addressed by coordination and handover of disputes between volunteers at DRN and whoever coordinates “mediation”, and the teeth component would only be needed in intractable disputes where we could leverage an RFC to create consensus. I think the most common objection I’ve see are that “RFCs work” but they often require a known, agreed on proposal and starting point and this isn’t always there for a content dispute. I’ve also factored in that often, there’s a reluctance for uninvolved editors to wade into controversial content disputes that might be at an RFC. But yeah, those are my rather long winded thoughts. Be keen to get your perspective! Steven Crossin 01:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I know the above is massively TL;DR and may not be an interest area of yours but would value your thoughts if you have time at some point! Steven Crossin 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock-decline

Renamed user b57b1e6b25176be485b548cf4103dc90 is a very-L LTA, Najaf ali bhayo if I recall. One of their patterns is creating an account, making a few of their favorite edits, then playing account-rename games and eventually VANISHing to cover their tracks. DMacks (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a block on that account, and I'll think of this if I see similar behaviour again. arcticocean ■ 00:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional sock

You just banned User:Giovanni.idn and User:Giovanni.idndutch for being socks, and I believe they instantly created a new account at User:Giovanni.tysm. Anwegmann (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's almost certainly the same person or someone connected, but they are not posting images of the same footballer and violating the copyright policy in the same manner. There is no need to block them for the time being. Please ask an administrator to block them if they become disruptive. By the way, the two accounts were blocked, not banned: see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF for an explanation. Thanks, arcticocean ■ 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
I am flattered of your presence on my unblock request. I really am grateful. Means a lot to me. Lots of love. Tulsi 24x7 13:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Arcticocean: Difference between revisions Add topic