User talk:Amarkov/Archive 12

Archives

---

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

Archive 12 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.

ANI complaint against me.

The complaint was not the full story. I've posted more information on AN/I at the complaint: the full history of the dispute is on my talk page. You should look into it a little more. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds rude, but why should I? Adding the two specific sentences given is perfectly valid, regardless of any dispute that the two of you may have. And I really don't want to be involved in a dispute over other things. I realize that I may have come across as condemnatory in my post, but that wasn't my intent. -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's actually the first I've ever heard about any two specific sentences: if you'll view my talk page, Flask never even bothered to talk to me about that. If he would have spoken with me, I would have not had any objection, as I've noted at AN/I. The point of the AN/I dispute is the sheer irrationality and disruptive behavior of his edits, which is bordering on the point of meriting a preventative block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear here: the first time I heard anything about the "two sentences" was when I went back to AN/I a few minutes ago and added that I had no objection to them. They were never discussed ANYWHERE with me: not on user talk, not on article talk, nowhere. This is the first time that issue has come up. See where I'm saying that Flask is misrepresenting the nature of the complaint? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I did not intend to condemn your actions, and I'm sorry it came across that way. But I don't want to get involved any further in this dispute, which is why I deliberately avoided studying too deeply into the circumstances. -Amarkov moo! 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know you didn't intend to, it did not come across like that. I just believed that since you HAD commented on the dispute, you should be made aware the full nature of the dispute, lest that affect the accuracy or relevancy of your comments. I know that you don't intend to get involved with the rest of the claim, just thought I'd make sure that we're all on the same level. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Involvement

I'm not sure if you saw my last message or not, but I would be very appreciative if you could get involved with this discussion, even if you aren't extremely familiar with that criteria. If no one else gets involved, this will never get resolved in either direction. Tewfik^Talk 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer for you

I hereby confer this glass of beer to Amarkov for his excellent contributions in the Wikipedia namespace. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But... I can't legally drink for a good nine years. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2 non wikipedia things

1. You're not an administrator? Have you filed RFA before? If not, would you accept my nomination? If so, and you think you've improved enough since the last one, would you accept it?

1. I notice your userpage says you're interested in pokemon. What are your thoughts on the new DS pokemon? I'm considering digging up my DS for the summer to play it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1. That's a Wikipedia thing. >.<. Anyway, it's getting to be about three monts from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov, and I've taken to heart the criticism there, so I wouldn't decline a nomination But expect a slooow crawl in actually answering the questions and getting it transcluded, if you do decide to nominate me.
2. I don't actually know; I have a birthday in a month, so I'm waiting to get the new game until I don't have to pay for it. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

proper location

Where would it belong? I knew of no place else to put it. The user in question routinely uses 3O in order to bypass proper discussion. He has also copied comments from other editors in other discussions and inserted them to appear as if the user had commented, and then edited the article based on those comments.

This user attempted to disrupt a conversation on my talk page and when that was unsuccessful, he began reverting tags I had placed on articles.

Now, when WP:BRD is cited for his conduct, he jumped right to 3O in order to bypass other editors being allowed to comment.

I'm open to suggestions on how to avoid the conflict, without being subjected to routine unilateral edits Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

3O does not at all bypass other editors being allowed to comment; anyone can still comment. However, the other concerns you've cited may justify a user RfC, if you've attempted to resolve it with him. -Amarkov moo! 02:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected

So this section is wrong as well because it doesn't specify namespaces? >Radiant< 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically. It only really matters with images, though, since they aren't placed on pages by using brackets, so the coding has to be different. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And likewise, then, categories? Looks like the instructions need some upgrading. >Radiant< 15:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher

You have been removed from NPWatcher's autorized users list. Happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 06:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -Amarkov moo! 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why it misguided?

Hi, May I ask that why my view point is misguided. According to WP:Undue weight you cannot represent a minority thing as majority. If use those few picture available again and again in different articles on top. Then why you think it is not misleading? --- A. L. M. Can you help? 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you're equating having pictures of Muhammad with a statement that Islam in general likes pictures of Muhammad, and that just isn't the case. -Amarkov moo! 23:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference here says that picture made of Muhammad are extreme rare by Muslims. WP:Undue weight says that a minority thing should not be presented as majority by putting on prominent place and in large number. Muhammad article for example has 4 pictures of Muhammad all made by Muslims. It is clear violation of WP:Undue weight. Can you please fix the article and improve it? In case you agree with above logic. --- A. L. M. 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I made my point clear enough. I agree that, if those pictures are used to show that Muslims make pictures of Muhammad a lot, they should be removed (because as you say, in general, they do not). But that's not what the pictures show; they are just pictures of Muhammad, showing how people have depicted him. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We could get most of the pictures made by Muslim from Zombie Time. These people get picture from there and use same picture over and over again in many different articles. It is obviously wrong. I give you few example.

Let say Jesus have only 50 pictures ever made by Christians since he is known to them. In books usually Jesus had usually no picture at all, in churches no picture at all, in encyclopedia no picture at all. But wikipedia article of Jesus had four picture where two are displayed near top. Encyclopedia should presents things that are there in real world in right proportion, otherwise it is not encyclopedia anymore. An encyclopedia should not take one part of history and over emphasize on it. It is just like In USA we say there are 80% white people and 20% others. However, USA page had all black people pictures in them and many on the top. Will it be right? Obviously not. However, I rest my case because you are not alone who does not understand it. I think I cannot convey my message. with best wishes. bye --- A. L. M. 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD-I3

You did, of course, read my reasoning as to why this line makes no sense at all and doesn't actually have Jimbo's support before you reverted it?  ⋐⋑ REDVEЯS 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I've commented on the talk page. -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request an account

Hello, I'm new to the job and want to know exactly what do I do to create an account for another user after I have checked the username out? I go here, then I type the capcha, username and email in, what do I put for the password? Do I just put say '123' and then click 'by email'? Your help is much appreciated. Extranet ^talk 05:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like to change the password from the default of 123, so that the account can't be stolen by some unscrupulous person. Anyway, you got everything else right; "by email" will send them the password so they can log in, and it doesn't really matter what the password is. -Amarkov moo! 14:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

MZMcBride's RfA

I was bold and formatted your stricken comment [1], as it was still autonumbered. Hope you don't mind. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, 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 05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer

In Wikipedia Village Pump (proposals) you asked me what exactly is wikiproject maintenance, it is a wikiproject that is decaded to cleaning up articles, they will be organized into separate groups to make it easy to indentify what needs to be done.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Enrique A. Pollack

I recreated the article because I had found other articles to show his "notability" Such as the Cuban government mentioning him in a formal protest to the United Nations.. I believe that the new article that I created is sufficiently credited and refrenced to be included in Wilkipedia. I woul like to request to have it reinstalled and see if there are any more problems with it from others. Callelinea 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be recreated, then you can nominate it at WP:DRV. -Amarkov moo! 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you check if I did it correctly? It's the first time I have tried to get an article re-installed. thank you. Callelinea 18:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, what about If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review found at [[2]]? I think their intent was to improve the article inasmuch as they had asked for others to take a look. It doesn't have to go back through DRV does it? I could be wrong. JodyB _talk 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

But its content was not why it was deleted, so that doesn't apply. The article was deleted because there was only one source, and it's not at all obvious that the new sources provided are any good. -Amarkov moo! 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking for help

Thank you for telling that the page I was editing wasn't active. I'm about to leave a proposal for a new barnstar today. Do you know what would be the best place to do that? Rhanyeia 07:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the link now, sorry! Rhanyeia 07:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Grrrr ... William Scott Wilson would have been my first DRV closing and you beat me! Newyorkbrad 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We non-admins pwnz joo. :P-Amarkov moo! 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the mature and helpful response. :-P Newyorkbrad 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

lolz u sed "and" lol kewl peeps sez "nd" -Amarkov moo! 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

/me am old n old-fashioned n uncool :( :( :( Newyorkbrad 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are Not Respecting Other Users

The original post was not vandalism, and thus, does not have the right to be deleted without asking the user to remove it and correct themselves. Your deletion is vandalism. blanking. SanchiTachi 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is already somewhere else, and people should not be posting things in a bunch of places hoping to find someone who agrees. Vandalism has to be in bad faith, anyway, and I'm not acting in bad faith. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside I'm a hopeless fan of Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" ... sigh --Iamunknown 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG WHO R U ND Y R U HER?!?!?!?! :P -Amarkov moo! 01:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
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 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections

but in practice, people who remove maitenance tags without fixing the thing that caused them to get put on are usually reverted, even if they don't think there needs to be a change

Most cleanup templates are constantly abused. How many articles have {{NPOV}} in them right now because someone thinks the neutral viewpoint is too critical of their pet belief? Does abuse of the {{NPOV}} template mean we should put it up for deletion, too? — Omegatron 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same situation. If there are cases in which NPOV is not necessarily required, then yes, the template for it should be nominated for deletion too. But NPOV is always required, and it is indeed abuse to use it when there is a NPOV. However, it's much harder to say that it is abuse of the template to put it on articles that don't have infoboxes, even if some people think there is no need for an infobox. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... What do you think of the current wording? — Omegatron 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that having a template at all isn't good, but that's definitely better. -Amarkov moo! 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you viewed it, but it's now been changed into a merge-style template, which I don't really like as much. — Omegatron 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the previous version, and I agree that the merge style is kinda weird. -Amarkov moo! 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the template is under discussion on the talk page. — Omegatron 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Hello Amarkov. I have removed 90% of the oppose column on Bobak's rfa because they were all sockpuppets. Would you care to reconsider/reword your neutral? Picaroon (Talk) 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, going ahead and doing that. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PGNx Media

An editor has asked for a deletion review [3] of PGNx Media (see article here [4]). Since you participated in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arielguzman 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, help!

The Duquesne Spy Ring article we have been discussing on the Village Pump (policy) has been unfairly tagged for deletion -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duquesne Spy Ring. In advance, many thanks for your support! Ctatkinson 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD

I have left a note here. Please read it. Thank you. Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding there. -Amarkov moo! 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

I don't understand the content you added to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Why is it "better to assume good faith" with less experienced editors? Shouldn't we assume good faith with experienced editors too? Are you asserting experienced editors are more likely to be deliberately breaking the rules? (Sdsds - Talk) 03:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Experienced editors are more likely to know about the rules, and thus more likely to be deliberately breaking them. -Amarkov moo! 03:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar proposals page

Since when did it go inactive? Simply south 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I just tagged a subpage; I wasn't at all related to inactivating the main page. -Amarkov moo! 16:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Was there any discussion on this anywhere? Simply south 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really know nothing about it. -Amarkov moo! 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've left roughly the same question right now on the WikiProject page. Simply south 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an MfD a couple of weeks ago in which people thought these pages had become to bureaucratic. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why?

From my talkpage Why when I log onto Vandalproof does it say im not approved?

Um... because you aren't? -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But I am. Can you help me? Wikiman53 t a 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Respond on my talk page please. Wikiman53 t a 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. Replied. -Amarkov moo! 22:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. Same problem. Respond on my talk always please and thank you! Wikiman53 t a 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thnks for your help!

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Really appreciate your help re sandboxes! 0rrAvenger 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

FAST deletion review

Regarding your comment Flexible Architecture for Simulation and Testing – Deletion endorsed, with no prejudice against recreation if reliable, independent sources are found. The original article cited, if I recall correctly, at least one published Stanford University PhD thesis, plus at least one paper from a respected ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) conference. These sources are highly competitively refereed, published, independent and respected within the community targeted by the article (computer architecture), yes? If not, then what exactly are you looking for? I want to encourage John to recreate the article, but apparently we need guidance regarding how to keep it there... Su-steve 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources have to be independent of the subject, which means that papers by people who contributed to developing the thing don't work. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have access to the original article, but I'm very surprised that such sources were not included. I'll talk to John Davis, the original article's original author, and I'm sure this can easily be straightened out. Thanks very much for your help! Su-steve 17:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, 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 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A valid comparison

It's certainly a valid comparison you made at the QZ Deletion RFC, but you did just post yet another ad for those sites, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think that people knowing about attack sites causes harm, assuming that the references to them are not intended to harass. -Amarkov moo! 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about it. I just thought it was an ironical sort of twist in your comment. I suspect everyone on that page has already heard of all three of the Axis of Evil Sites. I do wish that those so set against them would explain their penchant for promoting them, but that seems to be beyond my control. See ya around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Axis of Evil? ... Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not that Axis, er... not that Evil? I was just being cryptic, because it's the pattern I already set in this discussion. Now I'm overexplaining myself, and commenting reflexively on my words as I type them, draining them of all content in just over a cycle-and-a-half. Fun, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe yeah it is fun :-) is Axis of Evil referring to those "attack sites"? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already said too much, and yes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)