User talk:Aarktica

Religious democracy

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

Editor assistance sign-up

Thanks for joining the project! The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw if you want, you can also add this userbox to your userpage: Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EA

This editor helped out with the editor assistance program.

I've now added you to the list. For some reason, the section edit button doesn't seem to work, but if you use the Edit tab at the top of the page then it seems to work OK. I copied the signup comment you left at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance, but feel free to change it if needed. Also, don't forget to add your user page to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up on a Request for Assistance

Thank you so much for following up on my request for assistance on the Jat people page. I really still need assistance here. If you can spare the time I would be very grateful indeed.

For one thing - I forgot to copy the reply I received from Deryck C and I can't seem to find it again now. (I was going to write to him and ask him to redirect me to his reply - but I will wait now and see what you have to say). In any case, he suggested that the article be rewritten which I think would be a great idea except that I am really not the person who should be doing this (as I have explained in a recent note to the Talk page for "Jat people" - please have a look at the note which is self-explanatory at [[1]]). While I am an historian with a keen interest in Indian history, I am neither a Jat, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about Jat history, as such. In any case, if I try to rewrite the page I am sure to cause more antagonism and upset, which I think would be most unproductive.

This page, and other related pages, seem to have been hijacked by people with racial (and/or communal) and religious biases who overwhelm dissent by endless disputation and the quoting of many obscure authors of difficult-to-obtain books (often by Jat authors in Hindi). A number of times I have shown that the references they have called on to support their positions do nothing of the sort - but one must be able to check them to discover this - and many of them are just about impossible for me to find. I believe much of this misinformation is being done deliberately - while some of it may just be due to the fundamentalist religious convictions of the authors (such as insisting that the death of Krishna actually occurred in 3102 BCE and that Mathura was attacked by "thirty million monstrous fiends.") These are presented as historical "facts" and anyone who questions them is asked to disprove it. They don't seem willing to have such "facts" qualified as "legendary" or "mythological" or to qualify them in any way, but just go on the attack until people are either scared off or just give up trying. I have had some nasty insinuations made about me and my integrity, as you can see if you look at the Jat talk page and the Archives, but some writers have actually received threatening comments - see, for instance, the comments at: [[2]])

I have not had any replies yet to my last appeal on 14 April, (the critics seem to have gone very quiet the last few days) although the dispute tag has been removed once again without comment (which I have just replaced again).

I believe the article is riddled with inconsistencies and false and misleading information and is not worthy of, or good for, the Wikipedia. However, I am really at a loss about what to do next and can't afford to keep spending the time and emotional energy trying to counter the rubbish and propaganda. I am wearied and saddened by the whole experience.

Any help the editors might be able to give here would surely be welcome to me and a number of fair-minded Jats who are embarrassed about what is happening on the page (please have a look at their comments on the Talk page and its archives).

Thank you in advance for anything you may be able to do or suggest. Sincerely, John Hill 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions today which I will certainly follow up on. Sincerely, John Hill 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closing

Nothing major- its just that the template and your comment belongs above the AfD's heading rather than below it. Everything else was fine... WjBscribe 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks for the intervention.

Re your message: No problem. =) As for your question, only administrators can block IPs or editors. In this case with the fast vandal, you would just have to sit on the article history and keep reverting until an administrator notices the report on WP:AIV and blocks the vandal. On a side note, on your warnings to editors/IPs, you'll went to add "subst:" to the notices you leave. Don't worry about going back and subst'ing the ones you didn't do, there is a couple of bots that will do that. Lastly, thanks for helping to revert vandalism. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. =) Oh, you might want to put your user page into your watchlist if you plan to continue reverting vandals. Some have a habit of vandalizing your user page in a feeble attempt at retaliation. You already got a visit, which I reverted. -- Gogo Dodo 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________

Aarktica: Could you please provide some help? I am dealing with the entry for Robert Sungenis on his discussion page and I believe something is just off. Someone by the name of Otheus offered to help mediate between me and truth-seeker but some of what is happening just seems a little ridiculous.

Please take a look over the argumentation and help out if you would. If you also uphold and agree with what what is happening then fine. But it honestly looks ridiculous to me.

Thank you.

Liam Patrick 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content Management System

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on Content Management System and readded 'Moodle'. Moodle is a Course Management System, not a Content Management System. Why is it still being listed? Refer to the talk page.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.154.37 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll fix that ASAP. Thanks for the info. --Aarktica 20:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick! Thanks for taking that into consideration. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.106.154.37 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Admin?

Hi, Aarktica. I just noticed you recently closed some ifds as keep. Are you an Admin? Aren't admins the only one supposed to make such decisions? I've reverted the relevant editions. If I'm wrong, just let me know. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing deletion discussions

Ah, yes- I'm afraid in some debates the tags go above the header and in some they go below. I mostly close AfDs (where tags go above) and RfDs (where tags go below). Headers will show up at the bottom of the discussion below if the discussions are all on one page (AfD each have their own seperate page). There are also (for reasons I don't understand different types of tag for different discussion). For example:

Afds are closed with {{Afd top}} and {{Afd bottom}}

Mfds are closed with {{Mfd top}} and {{Mfd bottom}}

Ifds are closed with {{Ifd top}} and {{Ifd bottom}}

etc.

I really have no idea why...
Now in spite of the above, because most nominations at IfD are not discussed, there isn't usually any discussion to close. So I think most old IfD pages don't have any templates on them at all. I hope this is all of some help get back to me if you have any other questions. WjBscribe 14:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't worry about it - the system is over complicated. {{at}} is a redirect to {{afd top}} and {{ab}} is a redirect to {{afd bottom}} so they do the same as if you typed the full name. I didn't know they existed but they obviously were created as a shortcut for those who didn't want to type the full name- quite useful, thanks for pointing them out. WjBscribe 15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[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 Category:Uncategorized pages. The idea is you pick a page, and add it to the most appropriate categories. E.g. its page about an american novelist born in 1945 so it belongs in Category:American novelists (if they write romance, there's a subcat for Category:American romantic fiction writers) and Category:1945 births. Or if you don't think the article should be on Wikiepdia, nominate it for speedy deletion if it meets the criteria or start an AfD about it.
Fixing disambig links- this one's pretty obscure. For this you need to check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The problem is that if someone is writing about someone who is depressed, they link to depressed. But obviously "depression has many meanings" and they should have linked to Depression (mood) or Clinical Depression. The idea is that you go to a disambig page that has many links, click "what links here" on the right hand bar and go through the entries changing the links so they point to the right article rather than the page that lists all the possibilities.

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]