User talk:Amarkov/Archive 5

Khatami
Mohammad Khatami uses glittering generalities. By "democracy" he means mullahcracy and by "rule of law" he means rule of law.--Patchouli 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean you're allowed to say that in an article. -Amarkov blahedits 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean stating this to you. In the article, I put, "... It is true that Khatami beat three other candidates to win the presidency in 1997. But he emerged to victory only after the mullahs disqualified 234 other challengers whom they felt too reformist or too liberal."http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-rubin031802.shtml  and other things.--Patchouli 15:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... You didn't say "OMG KHATAMI/MULLAHS/ISLAM IS EVIL", at least, but that's pretty blatantly POV, no matter what sources you cite. -Amarkov blahedits 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where in the article page did I say this?--Patchouli 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I said you didn't say it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mis-reading.--Patchouli 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks much for your help =) Maverick423 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I don't really need thanks, but it's nice to get it! -Amarkov blahedits 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NPWatcher approval
You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist).  Finally, enjoy! M a rtinp23 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take another look at Articles for deletion/Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) ?
Could you please take another look at Articles for deletion/Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) ? Subway stations are notable. Wikipedia has many good articles on individual subway stations in New York, Paris and elsewhere. As well, Jules Joffrin (the person), a French politician who lived many decades ago, is notable. --Eastmain 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, subway stations aren't automatically notable. I reject most of these "But Xs are inherently notable!" arguments. Furthermore, being named after a notable person does not make something notable. -Amarkov blahedits 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Hammond
Thanks for addressing the recent vandalism on this page. Edivorce 04:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Malber's block
Amarkov, I apologise to you, and to the community – which had put its faith in me. I made a problematic block, I accept it. You are a bold man, you act in good faith and voice your opinion. I respect your judgment. However, Malber has been consistently disrupting Wikipedia since a long time; and then gets away with a warning all the time. Have a look at his contributions, he has made it a point to test the process, toes the line of disruption. He is consistently uncivil and acts in bad faith. Check the history of his talk page – he has been warned for his behaviour umpteen times but never heeds them. I will try my best not to involve myself in further disputes with him; but frankly, I believe that someone needs to make WP:DIFFICULT blocks. What did he do after coming back from the block? Instead of waiting for consensus (I assumed there was consensus because all I saw was criticism for his behaviour), he continues to be disruptive and asks questions because he does not like teenagers. As far as I know he has been involved in disruption/trolling on the talk pages of Journalist, Rebecca (Rebecca blocked him for making libellous edits) and WAvegetarian. I do not understand why the community should accept such disruptive behaviour, when he has made it clear that he does not want to contribute to articles/maintenance and only disrupt and test the process to its limits. If there is something I can do to make it up with the community and you, I would do it. Apologies, again. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I have followed the Malber issue in the RfA talk page and am not going to comment on it. But the Dakshayani affair goes back a long way and there are still some sleeping socks that Nick himself doesn't know about. He was once a decent editor in another incarnation but for some reason got frustrated and became a troll. Simbirskin doesn't know anything about this business to make such comments on it, unless he is a sock himself. Tintin (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am expecting a reply Amarkov. Am I going wrong? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just deliberately staying out of this as far as I can now. I accept your apologies, though. -Amarkov blahedits 15:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And so...an administrator places a punitive block on an editor he is in a dispute with and there are no consequences? And what about the above personal attack? &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. Go away. By no stretch am I more than marginally involved. Discuss it on his talk page, or yours, or somewhere other than mine. I don't want to hear about it. -Amarkov blahedits 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed and was closed early at 2/10/9. I am not discouraged, however, and will use the experience to improve my skills until a later date when I may succeed. Yuser31415 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. sorry
I guess I should have checked. This guy is beginning to annoy me. I'm pretty sure he was indef blocked a while back under another user name, User_talk:NoToFrauds. A Ramachandran 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article
You're still allowed to edit the article and all, but I think that the Torchic article should be protected for the time being to prevent immature vandals from editing the page. Sillygostly 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's out of my hands. There's a long-standing rule that today's featured article can't be protected without incredibly large amounts of vandalism. -Amarkov blahedits 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine
Sorry that whoever picked the featured article was on crack.
 * That's very... interesting. Why don't you go tell him that. I'm sure that people are very receptive to being told they are on crack. -Amarkov blahedits 15:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade's RfA
Thanks for participating (though ultimately perhaps not!) in my RfA, which failed. If you have any suggestions as to how to do better the next time around, they would be appreciated! Seraphimblade 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Debate
You voted at the DRV on this, wanted to point the AfD listing out if you wanted to vote there. Articles for deletion/John C. A. Bambenek (3rd nomination) -- ChrisPerardi 15:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas.
In the spirit of the Reason for the season, may I take privilege of offering a simple greeting: Merry Christmas. :) { PMGOMEZ } 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration opened against you
You are suspected (and probably are) a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of John Bambenek who is a well known troll and publicity whore. Because you are shilling for an obviously not notable article, you've been recommeded for banning accordingly. See WP:RFAR. -- J.cajindos 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 06:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
 

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Click
I got your message, but unfortunately, I have no other suggestions. I suppose if con sensus to delete were reached, a group of admins could muddle through the results. Right now, I am editing on a wireless phone, and I will not have better access for a few days, so I will contact you again then. Best regards, RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My article
My article for Andrew Gower included a wealth of information that WAS NOT covered in the Jagex or RuneScape pages. Please review my page again, and you'll see what I mean. Rih29 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it did. But the decision in that AfD was that he wasn't notable, so no matter how much information you have, he isn't notable. Now, if you can show a way he meets WP:BIO, I'll create it, but as it is, you're on your own. By the way, since you have an account, you can create pages yourself. -Amarkov blahedits 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured that a man who madw a highly successful MMORPG, with thousands of players playing daily would be notable. Rih29 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He isn't, though. If you disagree, you can create the article, but I'm not going to, because I don't think he is. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I create an article? Rih29 05:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of Andrew Gower, the page already exists, so you just need to overwrite the redirect with your text. To create an article that doesn't already exist, you just follow a link to it and type the article in the edit box that shows up. -Amarkov blahedits 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Email
I sent you one.--Kchase T 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am really getting tired of being accused of "advertising" the AFD
I did not "advertise" the AFD, I alerted exactly and precisely two (2) individuals, both of whom have been Wikipedia users since mid-2005, and one of whom was very active in the last AFD discussion. Therefore all considerations of "newbies" and "single purpose accounts" are irrelevant. Please consult User_talk:Michaelas10. Thank you. AnonMoos 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied this user through my talk page, it became clear to me that the most of the keep voters also came here following the messege.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not accusing you of advertising it, so you have no reason to be complaining. -Amarkov blahedits 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A problem?
(section removed due to pointlessness)

abuse of admin powers RFC filed
Courtesy notice: Cindery 22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... thanks, but you filed it incorrectly, and I don't care enough about the case to fix it. -Amarkov blahedits 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry--I noted in the edit summary that I had never filed an RFC before/formatting probably all wrong. Newyorkbrad has fixed it somewhat, and I asked for help from others. Since Argyiou's draft of an RFC re Nick was deleted and protected, and SA Jordan's RFC re Kuntan's username prematurely deleted, I decided it would be pointless to try to perfect a draft before filing. Even if you decline to participate re Malber's block, I hope you won't mind if your statements about it are included as diffs. All best, Cindery 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind. But if someone tries to claim I'm involved, I'm going to have to complain to them. -Amarkov blahedits 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused--if you don't endorse it or contribute a statement, that means you have not endorsed it or contributed a statement. How could anyone then say you endorsed it or contributed a statement? Your statements on the record re Malber's block only show that you made statements on the record re Malber's block. Cindery 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but I've seen a few people who weren't really involved clumped into things. -Amarkov blahedits 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes even less sense to me/I have (sincerely) no idea what you are talking about--who are the "few people who weren't really involved," what weren't they involved in, and what are the "things" they were "clumped" into? Cindery 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to you, but this conversation doesn't make any sense to me now. Just ignore it. -Amarkov blahedits 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

AIV
If there is something that can work in both firefox and IE, let me know and I'll update the master code so it propagates across everyones monobook. If you would like to make a specialized IE version, go right ahead!!! -- light darkness (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make a specialized IE version. I just finished writing one which isn't very clever, and requires a bit of input, but should work. -Amarkov blahedits 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it doesn't. Stupid timing, I'm going to have to figure this out. -Amarkov blahedits 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can help you out this weekend if you'd like, just leave me a note on my talk page when you'll be available. -- light darkness (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:FLPC21112242212.jpg]]
In regards to your comment on the Deletion Review there, if you can find a free version, please let me know. I couldn't find any, I assume I put the tag in regards to that photo in the wrong place, so it probably shouldn't have been speedied in the first place, but i'd like to avoid a mexican standoff in regards to the image. Just H 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for Admin tools
Hi Amarkov, (may or may not have spoken to you before - can not for the life of me remember)

Have been reading up the RfA on BostonMa (have yet to give my opinion), and saw your comments on the need for a RfA candidate to have a need for the Admin tools (or been working in areas that would naturally lead to this need). Now I know you do not represent anyone else apart from yourself in this, but your opinions would be welcomed:

From what I can see the majority of people get Admin tools for tasks such as vandal fighting and XfD closing etc... Far less for general conflict resolution and protections of pages (very difficult to show the need for the latter). Now as I aspire to be an Admin one, I do very little XfD or New/Recent page patrollers, but prefer to deal with conflict with resolution and my pet project WP:ADOPT - now the question is by commenting and helping in RfCs, mentoring and adopting etc... is this enough to show the need for the mop. IMHO if you perform these actions alone well, you would be in a good place to deal with conflict and know when and when not to protect pages. Or is that not enough?

Of course you see the problem - sometimes you can't show the need for Admin tools, because non-Admin functions are not always comparable. Your brief thoughts would be most appreciated - will watch your page so you can reply here.

Cheers Lethaniol 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's nice that you do those things, but they give no need for admin tools. The problem I see is that you, and many others, seem to view adminship as something that everyone should get eventually, when it isn't. It's like AutoWikiBrowser; you shouldn't get acess just because you do good things, but because you do good things that would be helped by it. -Amarkov blahedits 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I will be honest and say possibly I do aspire for Adminship for the wrong reasons - sometimes. But also I do enjoy working in conflict situations - where small (1-24hour) blocks and page protection may become useful. Are you saying that work in these areas does not warrant Admin tools? Many thanks Lethaniol 17:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are in the conflict situation, you are not supposed to issue blocks or protect pages. You're supposed to get an uninvolved party to. -Amarkov blahedits 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for your input, much appreciated Lethaniol 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology
(preemptively removing this to prevent flame war, I've read it, and you do not want to know what my response is)
 * (I do not wish to be involved, it is done for my purposes, please do not respond)