User talk:Arkon/archive5

Global encyclopaedia

My main concern is that both the Obama and Romney Talk pages are being very obviously flooded by opponents of the parties those two gentlemen belong to, who want to post the most minute, irrelevant, negative trivia in order to boost their favoured party's candidate for President. The vast majority of this stuff is already of no interest to observers outside the US, and will be forgotten after the election. There has to be more to the discussion of these two men than simply what interests politically active Americans right now.

Hi Arkon, FYI I removed vandalism in this section. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Arkon (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FAR review

I have made comments on the Barack Obama talk page about having a FAR. I have been neutral and recognized the fuckwit potential but also the greater need to have it. See my comments there. Evergreenme (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who may be watching this page

I got a confirmation e-mail to my tablet earlier today, for wikipedia. Needless to say, I had my account here waaaaaay before I had my tablet, and the corresponding e-mail address. I can't recall updating it. Any ideas? Arkon (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney

What is that article? Not encyclopedy! But: edit war, poll war or class war? -- Merlinschnee (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I...yeah, I have no idea what you are saying. Arkon (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unvanishing

I already knew it was going to take place due to private correspondences, but they needed to get ArbCom on board for some reason. I wasn't thrilled that ArbCom needed to be in the mix (and not sure why they did) but I was convinced that it was going to happen anyway. Since the result was the goal, this turned out to be the shortest, most simple and drama free way to achieve the goal, hence my request for patience. It's done now, which I agree is the proper thing under the circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The beach called my name, and I've been away, so to start: I was less than sober on my last post on AN/I, just annoyed by the seeming drag-assness :) But everything ended up how it should be, so I really do appreciate your help. Arkon (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem For what it is worth, editing buzzed can get you in trouble around here, I've seen it before. I try to shut off the computer after the 2nd beer myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've lasted 7 years or so, clean on the blocks, but my nice nature gets fuzzed. :) Arkon (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney's relative wealth

Hi Arkon. Regarding your recent revert, please note that the article is now being reviewed by a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) reviewer. That editor indicated at the article talk page that the RFC was closed improperly, and I agree. Also, did you notice how brief the sentence in question is, and where I placed it? Sometimes the best way to make progress at an article is to compromise. Any chance you might reconsider your revert? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was closed improperly, you should probably ask the closer to review it. However, just ignoring it, is also improper. Arkon (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. Arkon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Romney on FEMA

Please join the conversation on the Political positions of Mitt Romney Talk page. Dezastru (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat ya to it :) Arkon (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re KillerChihuahua on ANI

Thanks for your comments re KillerChihuahua. Ironically, the fact that the incident was closed so quickly, and that KillerChihuahua replied to your comments with more wikilawyering rather than addressing your concern, exemplifies the problem.

Do you believe that this issue is worth taking to the next level?

Thanks again. Memills (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I kinda doubt that there would be much traction in going forward with anything else on that front. I do think that KC is indisputably involved in the topic area, but as the pushback and strawman building on AN/I showed, it would be quite a battle. Sadly, best thing to do is to wait out his sanction, and then return with the knowledge that KC will not need much cause to come down on you again. Sorry that I don't have a better answer. Arkon (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance Required

I'm attempting to document the online community known as the "manosphere" in a neutral and impartial way. In particular I have an article waiting for publication that's very well sourced and would be difficult for even the most combative and biased editor to reject. However I'm beginning to become concerned that no one has yet looked at my submission. If you could forward this request to anyone in the position to approve my article if it meets Wikipedia standards that would help greatly. Ethicalv (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this later, but I am pretty terrible when it comes to content creation, so I may not be of much help. I'll leave you a comment when I can, thanks for the heads up though. Arkon (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Article Probation on Men's rights movement

This is not a warning, only notifying you for the log. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --v/r - TP 18:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arkon. You have new messages at The Potato Hose's talk page.
Message added 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— The Potato Hose 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto

add back tag, no consensus for removal, concerns raised on talk page, and RFC is ongoing

You must be looking at a different website. On this site, there is no consensus to add the tag, and no tag is needed at this time. Please cite the part of our guideline on WP:FRINGE that is violated by this article and give an example. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support . . .

you've given me in fighting the "old boys' club." Actually at 63 I'm sure I'm older than any of them. The problem is that ol' Roscey produces so many blatantly horseshit edits that it's hard to resist correcting them. The fact that she's about as likable as Lady MacBeth don't help matters none neither. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that statements like this will help your dispute resolution. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Why was this removed? [1] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a terrible edit. Who's Chen? Chen Chen Chen. Not to mention the referenced person is speaking of China specifically, yet the edit stays super broad. Arkon (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point, she isn't referred to by her first name in the initial instance of her mention either, i.e. Lanyan Chen rather than just Chen. That said, I think the content itself is relevant, it just needs to be better written and referenced --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Men Going Their Own Way

Thanks for your edit to Men Going Their Own Way. We have what looks to be a single IP editor, editing from a number of different UK mobile provider IP addresses, edit-warring there: I've semi-protected the article for a week to put a stop to this for now. Please let me know if this resumes. -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

Hi there! You object to naming Paul Nungesser on the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) article. However, Nungesser is prominently named in the Columbia University rape controversy article, which is linked to in the lede of the former. For what reason is this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As the edit summary stated, it was the consensus from the archives of the talk page for that article. IIRC, it was due to the fact that his side of the story would need to be included if named. This seems to not be the issue in the other article you mention. Arkon (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I'll start a new section then. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) talk page

Hi Arkon. Recently you've exceeded the 3RR restriction by continually altering my comments to remove mention of Paul Nungesser. Given that he has given interviews as Paul Nungesser, and is named prominently in mainspace at Columbia University rape controversy, I don't see this as an issue where our WP:BLP 3RR exception applies. Would you be willing to self revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, given that you have a rather odd history of trying to name the accused on that page, your repeated IDHT regarding the "why's", (seriously, you were in some of those conversations), if you attempt to reinsert this material I will report as needed. Also, don't post here again unless required. Arkon (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleared my Watchlist

I've cleared my Watchlist, so apologies if I miss any vandalism etc. Arkon (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Arkon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

on the different admin boards. I usually leave it to the community to decide these things and stay out of it, so thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! I couldn't help but notice the odd disconnect between results. Arkon (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Snowflake Generation

Hi Arkon, we are having a discussion over the matter which you reverted on the talk page. Thanks, please do not engage in WP:Edit warring. MHP Huck (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Trainwreck

That's the game. WP:BLUDGEON and post walls and walls of text to 1) encourage responses from attacked editors, thereby muddying the waters and drowning out the original AN/I report and 2) discourage administrators from getting involved, since they would have to wade through buckets of garbage edits to sort out what's going on. I've seen Volunteer Marek use this same tactic dozens of times at both AE and ANI, and it works almost every time. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Google memo

On text of the memo, i would encourage you to upload the text Keith Johnston (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am unfamiliar with how links to documents such as this are handled. IE, do we just blockquote the whole thing? Is there a size limit for doing so? Do we just do an external link? I don't know how best to handle it. I do think once those questions are answered your RFC might be moot. Arkon (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Prediction

pjEVnd

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Arkon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arkon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arkon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I'm notifying you of this SPI because you had noted 6Years's DUCK like profile [[2]]. Springee (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wikipedia 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Wikipedia 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia in 2021

Concerning the current MoD on userboxes. Eventually, our user-pages will be rendered blank :( GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

My ascii peon face will remain supreme! Arkon (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for anyone looking here, I really am curious if putting a box around the statement in the MfD is what makes it removable. If in normal text someone typed that on their UP, and was a normal editor, what happens? I feel like a stupid contrarian here (and proud?). Arkon (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 Wikipedia 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 2021 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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, is there any particular reason you added this awareness notice? I noticed you reverted Arkon's changes to the Jordan Peterson article. In doing so you restored newly added content that has been disputed on the article's talk page and currently doesn't have consensus. Thus it appears your edit violated NOCON. It does seem odd to add this notice when Arkon's edit is completely supported by policy while yours was against policy. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice of the discretionary sanctions in place concerning biographies of living persons. It doesn't imply any fault with the editor's contributions. Newimpartial (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Yet it is often used to suggest to other editors that they have done something that could be viewed as dispositive. Anyway, since it's a standard notice please add the awareness template to your own talk page since you are also clearly dabling in this area. Springee (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I do so; I am actually indicating AWARENESS each time I place the notice on another editor's Talk page. However, please feel free to place relevant notices on my Talk if it helps restore your sense of balance. Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)