User talk:Amarkov/Archive 11

Archives

---

Main talk ∞ 1 ∞ 2 ∞ 3 ∞ 4 ∞ 5 ∞ 6 ∞ 7 ∞ 8 ∞ 9 ∞ 10 ∞ 11 ∞ 12 ∞ 14 ∞ 15 ∞ 16

Archive 11 of Amarkov's talk

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page.

If you want to leave a message, please go to my main talk page. I am keeping this page for archival purposes, so please do not edit it.

Re:Your AIV Report

Well, at that doppleganger accounts are sock accounts but I'm not sure. Can you tell me what "doppleganger account" is? Saturation2 ^{Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me.} 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Doppleganger accounts are legitimate sock accounts that are created as a preventative measure against impersonation. There is nothing wrong with them. Reporting these once may be construed as an accident, but just don't do it again. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

LegoAxiom

Oh, and LegoAxiom is my brother. I think he is upset about something. Will you respond to him? Saturation2 ^{Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me.} 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Amarkov, I need to go to sleep. Will you bring this to ANI please? Newyorkbrad 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I was just about to. This frustrates me. -Amarkov moo! 03:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

Where are the RFA templates located, I tried, but perhaps I'm tired. I can't seem to find them. The close templates. Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

{{rfab}} is for the bottom, and {{rfap}} or {{rfaf}} are for the tops of passing and failing RfAs, respectively. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for commenting on Randopedia

Thanks for taking the time to read my Randopedia proposal and comment on it. Your comments are much valued. :) Itayb 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for accepting comments instead of just ignoring them or yelling at me, which is what I've sometimes gotten. -Amarkov moo! 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your msg

??? what do you mean? Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not currently clear what is meant by "creativity", so it's hard to discuss the merits of the proposal. -Amarkov moo! 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a new-born project in my subpage, let it grow! If you want to participate, wou're welcome. I'm trying to discuss where creativity can ou can't be used (style, presentation, content, ...) there is a lot of materials scattered in policy pages, of course, but it being scatterd makes it hard to synthetise and potentially incomplete. I'm trying to review it and complete where and if needed. Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it can't grow, just making sure you realize that it needs to. -Amarkov moo! 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Who would want such a page as a policy? (lol) Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people have advanced things that look like its current state as policy. -Amarkov moo! 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet (I, v, 166-167) -- but then: did it pass? Michelet-Me laisser un message 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow

When I read this post, I thought it out of character from your typical posts and did not think it appropriate. I also opposed, but based on the trusted users who understand policy test set out in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I really am surprised at the turn of events and to find that your post was a valid concern. I feel somewhat deflated. -- Jreferee 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals

Hi Amarkov. I would like to invite you to commenting upon or edit the new proposed policy Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals now that it has finally come up for discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Hopefully we can reach consensus (or not) within a week or two. Thanks! S.dedalus 23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

The two in the Arbcom that I askd for review and appeal, in email, didn't reply. My conclusion was that nobody was qualified to understand the case, nor was anyone qualified to ban me for the same! -lysdexia 20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If everyone in a position of power in Wikipedia is incompetent, why does it matter whether or not you can edit? I'd like to know. -Amarkov moo! 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I can edit with another IP. Do you mean whether I may edit? Every time some admin stops me, it disrupts fair work on Wikipedia—all the shoddy punctuation, all the popular misunderstandings, all the deluded and illiterate users. All the fun I get from learning and teaching and telling is wrecked when the admins put worthles civility over the truthe and fairness. -lysdexia 20:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility is not worthless. You may do good work, but if only you are doing anything, because everyone else has been driven away by incivility, a lot less can get done. -Amarkov moo! 20:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility is worthles, even if it's not worthfree. And it's not everyone else, but the wronger and weakker ones. -lysdexia 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's everyone else. People who are wrong can be incivil just as easily as people who are right, and probably more easily, in fact. And people who are less willing to flame others should not automatically lose all disputes. -Amarkov moo! 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Prove it's everyone else. If both sides present their best argument behind their incivility, the wriht argument will still show throuh the wrong or wronger one. As this is a wiki, whoever leaves the fastest (longest and strongest, not swiftest as the doltish many believe) work is accepted to be the trueest. Incivility and sound argument is a way to fiht the ineducate, deluded, and trolls. It works quickly on usenet; if everyone were kind on usenet, then each newsgroup would be flooded with shoddy rationalisations you'd find on a teenboard, or a fakethboard. -lysdexia 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't everyone else. But it is everybody who doesn't like to flame people, and they may have viewpoints that should be represented. -Amarkov moo! 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts

BOLD, revert, discuss? --Iamunknown 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Butterrum

Seems to have misunderstood the difference between a username change and socking *shrug* – Riana ^ऋ 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Moo?!

Hey, I've been using this for ages... besides, teeth beat out milk! *g* Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! --Shirahadasha 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Sorry for being very wary here but your closing on the adminnotice board here made me have a double take... are you an admin or are regular editors allowed to close admin noticeboard sections? I thank you for your opinion and I'm always trying to learn more about the policies of wiki... but I'm sorry to say that I have questioned your closing. Sorry if I mistaken you or baddly interpreted policy in advance. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've commented at the relevant section of the 3RR noticeboard. --Iamunknown 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • haha, strange that you found my comment here and on the noticeboard for Amarkov. Anyway I wasn't aware that people are allowed to edit the admin noticeboard... i looked over a bunch of the board and i didn't see other non-admins, i guess I applaud your work then haha. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To answer your question, no, non-admins aren't technically supposed to close things on the 3RR noticeboard. But WP:BOLD allows it, especially if you make it clear that people can revert you if they disagree. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ED

Please nominate ED for deletion review. If I did it, I'd be considered an ED troll, and I have found reliable sources for this. I would also like the original history undeleted. CornuSinistru 03:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I will nominate ED for deletion review when I am presented with a reliable source which is about it. If provide these reliable sources, and they are indeed reliable, I will nominate it. -Amarkov moo! 03:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (eleventh nomination) for sources. CornuSinistru 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I should have been clearer. I want a link directly to the article which mentions ED. I have looked for sources, and I have found none; I'm not going to look more every time someone says they have one. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Alexjohnc3/Archive 1

Let me explain what I mean. When I say I want a source, I want something that talks about ED. Not just mentions it once. -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quit being a jerk. I think even being mentioned on major television trumps being mentioned in newspapers, like Uncyclopedia has been. Do not try to find excuses, we HAVE to get an article about this, it is popular and notable, and has many sources. CornuSinistru 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being a jerk. Just being mentioned does not prove that it is notable. And I see zero sources still, which is not many. -Amarkov moo! 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You ARE being a jerk. 13 mentions, many from extremely notable sources, is enough to be notable, and the fact you say that is "zero sources" is crap. CornuSinistru 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is pretty clear that sources, not just mentions, are required, and nothing I've seen is more than a mention. Anyway, if I'm a jerk, then go get someone else to nominate it. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The guardian was more than a mention. And I have been considered a troll, infact the situation is getting worse. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Steel359 about an involved abusive admin. CornuSinistru 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state

Personally, I don't think these will ever see the light of Wiki again. I downloaded all the pages prior to their deletion. But, I have to disagree with you when you said "...and the fact that WP:NOT#IINFO's examples don't include postal codes does not necessarily mean it doesn't apply." It doesn't apply cause it isn't there. Now, I know it can be implied that a "directory" can include zipcodes, I just read the rules as they are (keeps me outta trouble that way). But, if it were a list of phone numbers, I would "ix nay" is right quick....but since these fall just outside the rules, I think they should be allowed. I know that opens up a can of worms, but sometimes ya gotta open a can of worms to have an article.

But, like I said at the beginning, I don't think this section will see the light of Wiki again, so it will probably all be moot soon enough. Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 03:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No policy can possibly list everything which is covered by it. It may not apply, although consensus seems to be against it, but it's only relevant to DRV if it definitely doesn't apply. -Amarkov moo! 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC

Oh, I totally agree with you that you can't list everything. Hell, just with directories, we would be there all day :) But, with consensus against it, it probably was a good idea I downloaded the pages. Probably a stupid question, but what does DRV mean? Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 05:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the shortcut for Deletion Review. -Amarkov moo! 05:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. By the way, if you want a copy of the zip code pages, please let me know. Take care....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Amarkov. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian MS

Do you mind! - I'm still writing it. Please restore at once Johnbod 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But nothing was ever done to it. What is there to be overturned? -Amarkov moo! 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. -Amarkov moo! 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this

I have had 3 edit conflicts trying to get my nomination up. I will tell you when it is finishhed. Please comment then! Johnbod 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but it's really preferable if you get it up all at once. -Amarkov moo! 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's finished now. I hope you will revisit your comment, as a) the closing was against the majority, with no reason given & b) you seem to have missed the point that the renamed title only makes sense as an umbrella category (the intention of the minority editors) which would already cover the Jewish biblical MS that have always been in the biblical category. Most Christian MS are in other categories, as described in the new nomination here. Johnbod 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoing my blanking

Thanks. I now appear to have both an archive and a talk page. Any chance you could explain to me how I'm supposed to do it in the future to wind up with both? I thought I followed the directions, at least for the page creation, but since it then made my original talk page a redirect to the archive, I didn't seem to exist anymore, until I blanked it. Then I couldn't figure out how to unblank it. KP Botany 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you did wrong. The move was right, you blanked your talk page correctly, but then your archive got blanked two minutes later. -Amarkov moo! 03:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Coren

Sorry about that, I thought I had the right idea with the formatting, but I had misunderstood the point of the #. It's fixed now, thanks to Nihonjoe. --Tractorkingsfan 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who messed it up, so I'm not sure why you're apologizing. Thanks, I guess? -Amarkov moo! 05:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I have been making many better contributions. Just wanted to let you know. Have a great day!

Sincerly,

WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Baksketball stuff

Speaking of better contributions, when I first signed up as a user I tried to add a couple links to my site (I won't mention it here because I don't want to be spamming the site). I feel that these links are valuable to other basketball fans but my site has not been blocked. I've gone through this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL but I don't know how to go about following these rules and my site is already white listed. Is there a way to include my articles on wikipedia? Thanks

Hoopsaddict 20:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never really dealt with spamming, so as you would expect, I don't know much about it. You'll have to ask someone else, sorry. -Amarkov moo! 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, I suspect you were making some good faith reversion but accidentally reverted me too, so I rolled back. Perhaps you could use the Undo feature if you still need to remove some junk :) Sorry about that. --kingboyk 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I can actually sort out the mess that was made. I think I just have to do it manually. -Amarkov moo! 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA comment

Apologies - I removed the archive link on the basis that the header had the same link, then removed the header :P anyway, I've re-added it, and for quickness, you can get to them here ~ Anthony 10:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD

I see that you reverted me on the CSD saying that there was no consensus. I'm not sure that that is accurate, as my recommendation for emendation was in line with the recommendations of Physchim62 and grm_wnr, and stood for nine more days without further comment. Furthermore, I had clarified the matter with other image experts/admins, and it is a rephrase of the existing line from negative to positive tense that preserves the meaning as myself and the responders see it. Tewfik^Talk 17:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was perfectly reasonable to assume that there was consensus then, true. But since someone has disputed it now, it's not clear that there is consensus. I would probably not have reverted you if I were aware of the full context of your dispute with him, so you know. -Amarkov moo! 03:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I do believe that the changes I made only clarified what was already implied in the now current wording (in the hopes of avoiding this kind of situation, oh well =D), and that such IDPs for Commons media created for no reason other than to populate categories, seemingly without limit, are already deletable under I8. Since you are familiar with the CSD, perhaps you could share your opinion? I fear that I won't be able to resolve this issue bilaterally due to the history with this user. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I8 is one of the few CSD criteria that I don't know, so I'm no help. Sorry. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider engaging in discussion on the Talk there anyways? No one else has commented yet, and I don't foresee any resolution without some third-party. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Twinkle.

I noticed this edit you made asking about why Twinkle doesn't work with Internet Explorer. I don't use Firefox either, so I asked AzaToth over a month ago about Twinkle and IE. AzaToth said that he doesn't use Windows as an operating system, and therefore, doesn't have Internet Explorer. I'm not a software programmer, but I think the main reason Twinkle doesn't work with IE is because it's just not compatible with the browser. I might be wrong, but that's my view on it anyway. :) I hope that helps. Acalamari 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Pollack

Before deleting someone's work, please use use templates to say that the neutrality is disputed, instead of just getting rid of their work. In the case of the Henry Pollack article, you could have used this template: {{pov-section}}

Thanks, Bballoakie 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't really thinking there. Sorry. -Amarkov moo! 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)