User talk:Amarkov/Archive 10

Just who do you think you are?
'''I've noticed that you believe that something is not a computer if you can't download warez or plug your iPod into it. Terry Shannon was very well known in the mainframe and minicomputer field, having authored a book that sold over 100,000 copies. Oops! You deleted the references. Just what do you have against Terry Shannon, VAX, or OpenVMS? Discpad 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)'''
 * I'm not going to respond to that. If you can't ask a question civilly, don't expect an answer. -Amarkov moo! 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with what's required?
Can you give us a pointer to the page that includes the requirements needed to keep Terry Shannon's page up? Most of us are new to Wikipedia and it's a bit overwhelming looking for the information regarding the required references. There are several of us looking into this issue and we'll try to quickly assemble the needed references once we know what's needed. Thanks for the help in advance. Krfarmer 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To meet my concerns, there would have to be multiple, independent, reliable, sources. That means that they have to be not written by Terry Shannon or any close affilates, and they have to be written by people with some repute. If you can get, say, two of those, I'll be satisfied. -Amarkov moo! 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would these be like references on a resume or something that was already written? What would they need to say?  I don't think it would be a problem finding "people with some repute" to write something now about Terry and his importance in the DEC (Digital) community. Kenneth R. Farmer
 * Pretty much like a medium-sized newspaper article is good. But they do have to be about him, not just mentioning him. -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's do this the easy way: Look at the Index of articles in The Register and another index of articles in The Inquirer. In case you didn't know, The Register is the most widely read IT publication in the U.K. Discpad 03:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable. -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Register and The Inquirer are not reliable sources?! I think you just touched the third rail. Discpad 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great remark from the wisdom of Amarkov

 * I think that based on the articles of theirs that I have seen, I am incapable of giving them much credibility. Very amusing, but not credible. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V template
Hello. Thank you for your help with the template at WP:OR (the ritired version). We updated the template however the page at WP:V is fully protected and I can't update the template. Perhaps the page should only be semi-protected? --FR Soliloquy 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can either discuss it with User:SlimVirgin, the protecting admin, or make a request on WP:RFPP. I'm trying not to be involved in much regarding ATT. -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted SlimVirgin. Thank you. --FR Soliloquy 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chacor RfA Talk Page
Please refrain from deleting threads in RfA talk pages that contain no contributions by you. That's simply not your right. Feel free to make your opinion known as to the quality or the necessity of the thread, but please do not summarily remove entire threads.K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
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 05:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sports Trainer
Hi i am contacting you regarding the Sports Trainer article, you wrote on the undeletion page 'speed unsalted'   i am a bit new to wikipedia and what does that mean? (Bradleigh 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC))
 * A page being salted means it was protected from recreation. "Speedy" means that there's no need to discuss it past the time it takes someone who can perform the action to do so. So that means that I think creation of the page should be allowed without having to discuss it. -Amarkov moo! 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports Trainer
Great, thanks for your help. User:JzG has redirected the sports trainer page to athletic trainer however this is incorrect as the two professions differ significantly is it possible to make sports trainer as a separate article or at least have a discussion about the redirect. The information is similar but the two professions differ. What can we do about this? thanks. (Bradleigh 03:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC))


 * FYI - i have changed the sports trainer page from the redirect to the sports trainer article and have opened a discussion about the issue of merging them. thanks for your help! (Bradleigh 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Re: Typo
I was actually practicing making new templates. Isn't it cool? I'll create a page for that! User: (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy Question
I read your comments that seem to be directd at me. According to what policy I have to wait before editing. I have seen many editors add all sorted of things to articles which was never got discussed before editing such as the academics section. Please be very specific about policy and not an opinion. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Pretend that I put in the words "when your addition is disputed". Happy? -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your comments. Please direct me to the specific policy which will answer my question. Thanks for your help. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not specifically in any policy. OMG WIKIPEDIA WILL COLLAPSE, WE'RE NOT JUST READING FROM POLICY TO DO THINGS -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many editors have added a lot of stuff to articles without discussion. I do not see the difference. I did discuss and edit for people to see and read. I added info and organized the wiki boxes, etc. Do you think my edit was disruptive. Please clarifiy. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 03:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was disruptive. Discussion is good, but if your edits are disputed, then you wait until the discussion is finished before you add them. You don't say "Oh look, I'm discussing it, so I can put it in now!" -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The other editor did not dispute my edit. He just said I should gain consensus first. There is no such policy to gain consensus before adding. People add info and other review and edit away. If he disputed something he should of taken it to the talk first which he did not. He still has not disputed anything. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing an edit is an implied dispute. And it's your responsibility to start the discussion, not his. -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not see his statement as a dispute. I already started the discussion first and for people to overview my edit. I thought he was being disruptive without explaining the reason for the revert. It is up to the person who did the unexplained revert to explain the reason on the talk. I doubt he will ever explain his revert because there is no policy to gain consensus first. I looked at his statement as not policy and not a dispute. Gain consensus first is not policy. The majority of edits are done without any discussions first. :) - Mr.Guru ( talk/contribs ) 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

COWCOW
I need a random topic for the next archive. Correct my fake conjugation if it's wrong.


 * mooar

edit conflict
Sorry. My "you" wasn't you, though I realize the indents made it look that way. I had actually struck that comment before you replied. At any rate, I definitely don't see a COI. I mean, there's absolutely no such recommendation in scholarly publication where there actually is an incentive to puff your own citation count. A citation on Wikipedia couldn't possibly be of any professional benefit, so I can't see where there's a conflict. But, it's a moot point, as you indicate it's not a prohibition. Derex 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a COI in the strict sense, I agree, but it's still hard to be objective about yourself. The problem isn't so much that your citation count would be artificially inflated, but that the Wikipedia article might be biased if you're not that important in the field. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
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 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Note
Thanks for your note Amarkov. I didn't check back far enough. The IP address in question removed the vandalism of the previous editor but (also) did not go back far enough to realize the Novel Background section had also been removed. When I looked at the edit that came after this IP addresses entry I saw the resotration of said section and assumed (incorrectly) that they had removed it. Your note made me check more thoroughly and I found my error. Thanks again for following up on this. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Amarkov
Hello Amarkov! I've seen you editing Wikipedia for a long time, and in your userpage I see your intention to become an admin. Would you like me to nominate you? Wooyi 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had an unsucessful nomination about a month ago. I'm trying to work on some of the things brought up there, and besides, a nomination after only a month obviously won't go too well. I'd like to wait until Juneish, so if you still want to, nominate me then. -Amarkov moo! 03:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, since I've examined that previous nomination, I will not nominate you now, but probably after months. The problem the opposition pointed out was that you had too few mainspace edit, I think it's quite easy to fix that. And something I was confused was the Child Wikipedian category controversy, what happened, and why it was speedied after keeping CFD? In my point of view, a category of "child" wikipedians in userspace is not an excellent idea, but deletion was unnecessary either. Wooyi 04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was speedied because someone decided it was such a "bad idea" that it needed to be deleted right now, against consensus or not. And such a "bad idea" that wheel warring to keep it deleted was okay. I bailed out before it could go to Arbcom, and apparently everyone else did, too, because nobody cares anymore. I still have deleted age category on my userpage, partly as a silent protest and partly because it's too much trouble to go hunting for the transclusion that causes it. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. Deleting age userboxen/categories is really an unwise practise, as it would create a precedent to potentially delete all other categorization of users (region, political inclination, religion, etc.). The fact is that all these political/regional/religious/philosophical box/cat are now userfied and kept using, I do not understand why age is such an exception. Wooyi 04:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can understand to some extent the concerns that come from giving anyone, including potential molesters, a list of children on Wikipedia. I might actually agree were I unbiased; I can't really tell how much my opinion is influenced by the fact that my first exposure to the issue was people on Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy saying "WE MUST CITE THIS PROPOSAL AS A CRITERIA FOR SPEEDY DELETION OF AGE CATEGORIES OR WIKIPEDIA WILL DIE". -Amarkov moo! 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good or Bad???
Well, I know it is rarely new, but did I do well on creating those templates? LegoAxiom1007 05:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you did well; I don't pretend to be able to judge that. Whether or not they're good, though, they don't qualify for high-use protection until they are actually highly used. -Amarkov moo! 05:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to User:Amarkov, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. LegoAxiom1007 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep this and show it as an example when people ask me "but why shouldn't I be overzealous with antivandal scripts?". -Amarkov moo! 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^ demon [omg plz] 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You disappoint me for doing this on everyone's talk page. OMG RECALL -Amarkov moo! 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Billy 23123
Hi there. It's not so much that their edit count was zero, but when you look in the logs you'll see that they created one or two attack pages (now speedied). The deleted page (admins can see it) contains a reference to an image which the main sock account uploaded to use on a very similar page. Sockie, methinks! We'll keep watching and see what happens ... :) - Alison ☺ 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You admins and your deleted edits. :P. I would have expected at least some warnings, though... -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:I reccomend you to Stop using TWINKLE
Thanks for the message but, when am I going to use TWINKLE again? IsuzuAxiom1007 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is a troll and should be blocked indef. A mere 11 minutes after posting this he applied to use Vandalproof. . Nardman1 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
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 13:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

open for recall
In your vote on Anynobody's RfA you said you dislike open for recall. May I ask why? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I obviously don't mind the sentiment of "Hey, I'm accountable to the community, so they can recall me if I'm not trusted!" However, the problem is that the ideal doesn't work well. If you are an active administrator, then you will make some people angry. Thus, people start taking admin actions worrying about "am I going to get people recalling me for this?" That is not at all condusive to being a good admin. And admins who are too timid to take action when necessary are harmful when patrolling backlogs, because things that should get done don't. -Amarkov moo! 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your thoughtful comment, and not just because it was in support of me.


 * You've already answered my initial question, and it is a great point I hadn't really thought of. Like KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) I was curious to know a bit more about your opinion. I didn't like the idea of being accountable to only certain editors, I get the impression it would be easy for a few people to create an unimpeachable administrator that way. I prefer an RfC because I hope for every two editors I anger enough to call me to task there will be 4 or 5 who agree with me. Ideally if I do a good enough job any complaints would appear to anyone neutral as sour grapes, so an actual RfC should be a rare thing. Do you think I might be accidentally trying to create a huge timesink for the community? The reason I ask is that I don't want to waste other editors time by having them comment on a new RfC every week if they happen to agree with me. Anynobody 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, an RfC is certainly better than a straight "If X number of people request it, I will stand for adminship again". However, it's hard to judge what the result of an RfC actually is, because it's not set up in a way that makes it easy to see how many people agree with one side versus another, only to see how many people agree with particular other opinions about the subject. And any admin will make mistakes with the tools at some point. Problem is, it's really hard to be objective about a mistake when it's your page that got deleted (or whatever). So many people will complain about mistakes, most will have enough people behind them to certify an RfC, and very few people will say "Look, it's just one mistake". I've seen it happen, and that was for an admin that didn't formally make themselves open for recall. -Amarkov moo! 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You paint a believable picture of the worst case scenario, I'll remember it if I happen to be approved (it's a big if). Still, we do need more administrators so even though I'll probably be rejected I can still bring up the issue. Hopefully more people will nominate themselves or be nominated by another if/when they see the need Wikipedia has for more admins. Have you given much thought on what to do about the lack of admins for some tasks? Anynobody 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you're asking. I personally don't need to do anything; if everyone I supported passed, we'd have a considerably higher number of really active admins. I've given a lot of thought on what, in general, to do about it, but every single suggestion I've seen reduces to "Ignore opinions X and Y because I disagree with them", which I strongly oppose. If someone has a system that manages to get more admins without having to randomly disqualify reasonable opinions, I'd support it, but I don't see one. -Amarkov moo! 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't interpret my question as being an angry "Well what's your idea then?!!". Your points seem well thought out, so I am curious if you had thought of something I hadn't. (I know the question "have you given any thought to" can sound condescending with the wrong tone, but seriously that's not the tone I'm going for.)
 * I feel the same as you, any really good ideas tend to get dismissed without anyone giving any real thought (going toward what you said about ignoring x and y because "I disagree with them" even though they could be right). I especially agree with your closing sentiment: "If someone has a system that manages to get more admins without having to randomly disqualify reasonable opinions, I'd support it, but I don't see one." I don't really see one either, and this RfA was the best I could come up with. (Like I said, it probably won't work but I'd feel like I'm ignoring important work if I don't at least offer.) Anynobody 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't take it as condescending. I just interpreted it as "since you think there should be more admins, don't you have to support more?", which would be perfectly reasonable if someone didn't realize I do support more admins than pass. -Amarkov moo! 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I think you recommended me for the right reasons so I'm guessing you do that with everyone (since I don't know you and you did for me).
 * I just want to say thanks again for taking the time to both participate and answer my questions. Anynobody 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducing transclusions on Template:Usercheck
Re : Yeah, I would have done that too, if I could have been sure that the subpage titled with the username-and-no-number would always exist. After looking through the Special:Prefixindex pages, I did not feel safe in making that assumption and relying on that test. Whether older pages got deleted or moved, or whether people actually started with username_1, there were cases where numbered subpages existed but unnumbered subpages did not -- and as the code now reads after this edit, the template will simply not find those numbered subpages; having found no unnumbered subpage, it will simply stop looking. That's a false negative the previous code wouldn't have generated. Is that cost acceptable for reducing transclusion overhead? -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops. I didn't realize that there were cases like that. It was only worth it if it didn't affect anything, which I didn't think it did. -Amarkov moo! 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Sorry my answers got posted too slow, now all the questions are answered. And grammar fixed as well. Wooyi 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit the nom statement was written too hastily, there were indeed many grammar problems. Wooyi 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on AMA
Hello! I've noticed you voted "historical" on the WP:AMA MFD. I voted keep because I think it is a useful project. Can you explain that why you think its harm outweigh its help? Because I read some of their stuff and they seem helpful, although I've never been personally involved in any of their activities. Wooyi 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not like there aren't people who help new users. If it is deleted, people will still help new users who are in content disputes; there is no reason I see to doubt that. The only thing special that comes from the AMA is someone who will help you, whether or not you are right. If an advocate is convinced that their advocee is wrong, they are not allowed to just say "You're wrong, I'm not going to support you anymore". They are supposed to either support them anyway or find someone else who will. -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ATT poll
My !vote is not broad opposition to ATT, but opposes this merger to its present text. I have classified your vote in the same category; please correct if I am wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Close enough; I'm undecided on whether or not I would oppose any merger. I'll move it later if I decide. -Amarkov moo! 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV re: Ibrar Maqsood
You're right that the tag can be removed as long as it isn't the author doing it, but it's hard to assume good faith that the authour and the IP address in question are not the same person, given the randomness of the article subject. Thanks, though. Whitstable 18:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

TEH COWBELL
teh cowbell is coming

Needs more cowbell
&mdash;dgies tc 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * aAAA 4 AAAA AAAAA AAAAA AAA AAA AA AAAA! -aAAAAAA AA:AA, A aAAAA AAAA (aaa)
 * This talkpage really needs more cowbell --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? ·  help! ) 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]][[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]][[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]][[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]][[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]][[Image:Koebel.jpg|50px]] &mdash;dgies tc 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only 11 more minues of cowbell. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that anyone is right or wrong it is the attitude
The reason i don't think the user deserves admin privileges is their attitude. The immediate threat that they had to be correct and immediate assumption of bad faith and the assertion of "strong views" on subjects is in my opinion not conducive with admin privileges. Who is right and wrong is a matter of opinion.--Lucy-marie 23:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... of course he immediately thought that he was correct. He was, and rather clearly. I also see no evidence that he assumed you were acting in bad faith; it is really quite possible that a user can do something clearly wrong, but in good faith lack of knowledge. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read my talk page the first comment left by JZG on my talk page it was a coded threat.--Lucy-marie 10:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's so unobvious that you have to tell people it's a coded threat, you're not assuming good faith enough. -Amarkov moo! 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject MMO Newsletter - April 2007
<div style="border-bottom:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#d0e5f5; padding:0.2em 0.5em 0.2em 0.5em; font-size:110%; font-weight:bold;">

RfA
What would you say to the idea of being nominated for administrator? I am just looking for your answer first before I have a proper look at your contributions and editing history, but so far it looks good. Viridae Talk 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a failed RfA in February, so I really don't think I should try again until May-ish. I think I'm doing better, but it really hasn't been long enough. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
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 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN
Days ago I have proposed RFCN to shut down due to frustration, and now it is reformed so I support its existence. However, another group of users filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, it's getting serious. If you want to you can voice your opinion there. Cheers! WooyiTalk, Editor review 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

per
Per this, please nominate for deletion this. Thanks --91.120.117.160 09:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Cla68 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)