Old messages: User talk:AGK/Archive Want a page undeleted? Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is quicker. E-mail me: Special:EmailUser/AGK.

Can you let Anthon.Eff know of the ArbCom AA2 ruling? He has reverted 3 times on the Justin McCarthy article with just 2 days.[1] Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm always happy to serve notifications to those who are active in this subject area, on request or on my own initiative. Notices are generally a good thing that help innocent users from straying outside of the conduct parameters set by the committee. Though do remember that if you are requesting any action more serious than a notice of sanctions, the standard forums must be used instead. Regards, AGK 10:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently placed me under restrictions, and neglected to point to the specific edits which you consider a problem. Would appreciate clarification. Thanks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor does not have to be behaving problematically for him or her to be placed on notice. They only have to be editing on a contested topic area (in this case, Armenia Genocide). Being placed on notice is not a reflection on the editor's conduct, so I hope you didn't interpret it in this way. As for what edits gave rise to my notice, that obviously is your two changes to Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my message to your talk page. Regards, AGK 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I was not behaving problematically? The reason I'm confused is that the notice you placed on my talk page says: This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions: and three restrictions follow. The first of these says: ...You are limited to one revert per page per week... This seems a very severe restriction, and one that obviously doesn't apply to KansasBear, based on his edits on the Justin McCarthy (American historian) page. So why me and not him?

Should also mention that Justin McCarthy is a prominent living academic, and the page is constantly edited by people who think ill of him. BLP considerations are at least as important as whatever considerations were developed to handle the incessant bickering over late Ottoman history. It hardly helps that you restrict me and not his detractors.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wrong template to notify you. I hand out a lot of notices for this kind of thing, so I guess I stopped reading the actual template :). I'm sorry if I upset or annoyed you in doing so. I've rectified my mistake by replacing the notice with the correct template. Regards, AGK 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done!. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. This was on my to-do list actually. Guess you've done the work for me :). AGK 21:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be creating an RfA for AD in the morning (UTC) - It's getting too late for me to be able to concentrate on it now.

When I have created it, I will let you know so that you can add a co-nom - and then I'll let AD know that he can answer the standard questions. Once that's done, I'll transclude it!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I probably won't be able to add my nomination statement until tomorrow night (BST) at the earliest. Will this be a problem, or are you and Alexandr okay with a short delay? AGK 23:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, and I'm sure that Alexandr will be too! Until tomorrow night then... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait until you have the co-nom written. I'll let you both know when I've answered the questions and am ready for transclusion. Night all! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlexandrDmitri - once you have added your co-nom, let me know; when AD has answered the questions and you have written your co-nom statement, I will transclude it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGK,

Thanks for responding to my speedy deletion request. I posted the wrong link by mistake. The text appears in a different academic article credited to the same author as the first, hence the similarity. From the correct link, it appears to be exact and in total, less headings and references.

Would you be willing to take a second look?

Talk:Classification_of_Authentication

Pnm (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, that's more like it. I've deleted the page under WP:CSD#G12 (unambiguous copyvio). Thanks for bringing this to light. AGK 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Pnm (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback|Dabomb87|Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom}} Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied there. AGK 11:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you declined to delete this article as it had never "been subject to an AfD". However, although Avenged sevenfold tour had never been subject to AfD, Avenged Sevenfold Tour had. I believe that the re-creation at an alternative capitalisation was simply to get around the fact that the article had been deleted previously. I wonder if you could perhaps take another look at this matter. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the capitalisation explains why I missed the AFD. I didn't spend too long as CAT:CSD had a backlog of fifty items that nobody except me seemed to be working on :). Anyhow, I've deleted the article as a recreation of a page deleted per XFD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. AGK 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Sorry, should have made it more clear in edit summary that name had changed slightly from original AfD. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I've got rid of some of the work that's been keeping me busy. I want to run things through you before I do to make sure. I'm gonna open a discussion in the "Administrator's Noticeboard". I'm not sure if I need to use any template. Is there any template that I need? I will simply explain my case if there isn't. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Sanction appeal}} is what you are looking for. If you intend to file the appeal soon, please allow me a few days to scrutinise your previous editing in greater detail than I have to date. We could tentatively target Friday as the day for opening the thread? AGK 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll open the thread on Friday and enjoy my vacation until then. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Today for location articles connected with Azerbaijan in enwiki is used this map. This map is wrong.

• According to the Karabakh point of view there is new independent state - NKR. The territory of NKAO and NKR are different.
• According to the Azerbaijan point of view, on November 26, 1991, the Parliament of the Azerbaijan SSR abolished the autonomous status of the NKAO.

So the map is wrong, because the territory of NKR differs from the territory of NKAO and gives wrong information about the territory of NKR.

For example ruwiki to the NKR location related articles uses two maps: of the Azerbaijan and of the NKR. More than that they use modern map of Azerbaijan with a real teritory of NKR.

• Map of the NKR
• Map of the Azerbaijan

We can use for NKR related articles two maps (both of the NKR and Azerbaijan) and for only Azerbaijan related articles newest map without NKAO which isn't exist 19 years and with real existing NKR.

What do You think about it? --Ліонкінг (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what I think, though that's immaterial as I had never heard of this dispute until today and I have no opinion on which position I think is the correct one. What matters is what the topic's reliable secondary sources say on the positions. WP:V#Burden of evidence and WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality really are not difficult policies to honour. AGK 12:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Jon lukas woodenman on 16 May 2010, and JForget deleted it on 16 January 2010 (log). I notice that it now exists, and am leaving this message as a FYI. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the third time that the editor in question has (re-)created the Woodenman article. I've dropped some advice and a final warning on his talk page. Thanks for bringing this to light. Regards, AGK 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AGK,

I know this area of articles is stressful as I am editing there. But please, can you pay more attention that:

1) the edit you mentioned was not dome by me [2]

2) And that the summary parole in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit is NOT for me. it is for Hittit. One more admin (Sandstein) was mistaken the same way and it was mentioned by me and by Stifle alike: ":Point of information: Aregakn is not subject to edit summary parole; that's Hittit. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)"

Please address this issue ASAP. Aregakn (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was already aware of these points. That was why I said "I am puzzled as to why Aregakn is appealing a general sanction that he has yet been proven to have violated". AGK 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I a appealing a different sanction against me mentioned in that AE, not the whole AE ruling. Can you clarify what I have been yet proven to have violated? Aregakn (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that you have not yet been proven to have violated the sanction that led to Hittit being banned. Do you understand that? AGK 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not really. there was the AE that Hittit violated and some rules that led Hittit be anned, not sanctions. Can you please clarify what you mean? Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't understand it, because you sentense in my appeal is "....why Aregakn is appealing a general sanction that he has yet been proven to have violated..." And here you say: "I said that you have not yet been proven to have violated the sanction". Don't really get it, sorry. Aregakn (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I can be any plainer. Please leave me to address the AE thread on my own terms. AGK 18:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but I want to understand the contradiction of those 2 ideas above and I am asking to help me in it. Aregakn (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "he has yet been proven to have violated" is another way of saying "not yet been proven to have violated". The two ideas are not contradictory because they are the same. AGK 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it's my English... I thought "He has yet to be proven to have violated" would mean that. Sorry.

Here I am appealing a sanction raughly telling, that I am "throwing about the word vandalism". Is it that you think I am? Aregakn (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal has nothing to do with you. It concerns Hittit. So nope, I do not think that you are. AGK 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But... but I am making the appeal for myself. there was a sanction on me and I want to appeal that :). Not the sanction on Hittit. Aregakn (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. AGK 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the correct AE case in the appeal thread, and consider removing the links to the Hittit thread as they are clearly only causing confusion. AGK 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what I wasn't understanding. How these things are connected to me. And I was starting to think already, that there is a big conspiracy :)... Can you please help me in the links? The actual ruling was made in the Hittit's case that I mentioned and it was registered in te log of AA2. WHat is the correct link, if not Hittit's case? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Hittit in the paragraph Result concerning Hittit is the sanction against me; quote:

"Hittit (talk · contribs) and Aregakn (talk · contribs) are placed on an editing restriction in the following terms for one year. Should either describe any edit in the area of conflict (construed widely) as vandalism (including, but not limited to, in edit summaries, talk page posts, and AE requests), other than an edit, reverting which would be exempt from the 3RR, they may be blocked for an appropriate duration by an uninvolved administrator. This includes, but is not limited to, references to vandalism with a qualifier such as "obvious", "simple", or "possible"." end of quote. Aregakn (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from. The ruling was made in a thread that was not originally about you. Okay, I understand the situation now. AGK 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfff... One more thing. Pls have a look at the AE page. It was a mess coz of a little thing. Stifle, mstakenly, removed the heading of the case and it seemed irrelevant. Now I see it. And I was thinking why do people not understand what I am talking about. Thanks for patience Aregakn (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! And one more thing I noticed just now. Pls see above. Aregakn (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the double section header? If so, I've just removed one of them[3] so it should be fixed now. AGK 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that removal would be the propper. Otherwise, when the other was removed, it looked I was appealing the whole AE case. I was already thinking to go to a doctor and check my brain and see if it was me thinking and explaining in a way that nobody understands. Aregakn (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that there is a request to restore Folding plug at WP:REFUND#Folding Plug. While the draft has issues I wouldn't see it as a G11 especially not since it there was a stub underneath. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you mean by a "stub underneath", and I maintain that the article as it stood was an unambigious G11. The prose was in all respects sculpted to promote this product. But I would happily have the article undeleted if you and the others are satisfied that an NPOV-satisfying article is feasible. I am willing to defer to your good judgment here. Regards, AGK 21:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, also for the green notice that I didn't see previously. So I'll restore. To clarify, I simply meant that according to the edit history it was a stub before the latest addition which already rules out G11 unless we have the same editor(s) expanding it or the stub has no value at all. What made me disagree on the substance is the fact that the expansion may not be completely neutral, but mentions several alternative solutions and safety issues. Best, --Tikiwont (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that there was a "general failure to take the disagreement to dispute resolution" is simply not true. You need to make more of an effort to understand a situation before you throw such accusations and related threats around. Ask me about any one of the (many) disputes Nipson has edit-warred over, and I will show you were the dispute resolution happened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If not dispute resolution then to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. You baited him[4]. Period. With respect, it is not I who needs to make more of an effort to do anything. AGK 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about that squabble, but your far more serious accusation regarding the earlier content conflicts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. My comment was exclusively in the context of the spat on the AE noticeboard between you and Nipson. "To take the disagreement to dispute resolution" was a circular way of saying to take your bickering to the talk page or to cut it out. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. AGK 22:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We must be talking about different things. You said "I would also look to place any other editors involved in the dispute with Nipsonanomhmata on 1RR. He clearly wasn't edit warring with himself, and the general failure to take the disagreement to dispute resolution concerns me", which evidently refers to the prior content disputes. You made an accusation there, which I take it was directed against myself. The accusation is factually wrong. Please substantiate it or retract it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean that. From the fact that there was edit warring taking place, I deduced that people were not taking the disagreement to dispute resolution. My logic there was sound, so no retraction will take place. But be assured that my comment was directed generally and honestly was made without my even looking closely at the names of who he was edit warring. I did not even look at the article history, but only at the cited diffs; and I spoke simply from having realised that this guy clearly wasn't reverting himself. If you haven't been edit warring and you aren't in the wrong then you have nothing to worry about. AGK 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "deduction" is wrong, and the logic behind it is unsound. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, unless edit warring was recently added as a step to WP:DR—and moreover, unless it has become acceptable to flamewar over content instead of talking things through like reasonable adults. AGK 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly some of us who know edit-warring situations first hand, from the perspective of actually handling and containing them, and some who know them only from the olympic heights of the noticeboards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually respond to my point, instead of playing down my involvement in the nasty side of the project. And for reference, I have had to "contain" (are you seriously suggesting that I, or for that matter you, have ever succeeded in truly resolving a content-based edit war?) many more such situations than I'd have liked to. AGK 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me the deleted page for the band "First Aid"? I think it is being targeted for speedy deletion without reason. This band has an album published in the UK and should be eligible for a page.Wwallacee (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your interest in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#MediaWiki extension that supports "Harvard" references. I've replied to you there. X-romix (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to hear from you again. I haven't been around much lately, and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon.  :(

Oh well.

TT