User talk:Amarkov/Archive 7

Sorry everyone
I left the redirect to my archive, so if you wanted to talk to me, you probably couldn't. Sorry. -Amarkov blahedits 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question
I went to the "Deletion Review Page" and picked your name, so I apologize if I am asking the wrong person. I was wondering why "Retarded Animal Babies" has been protected from re-creation...and why it was deleted in the first place. Yes, I am aware, that the cartoon to some is tasteless, disgusting, and crude, but the same could be said for Happy Tree Friends. Just curious.

Rock on....SVRTVDude 09:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was repeatedly recreated after this AfD. -Amarkov blahedits 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship.
I'm very surprised you haven't been nominated yet. Would you like me to nominate you?  J o rco g a  Yell!   03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check your email. -Amarkov blahedits 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Mfd (PAIN)
Was your comment here intended as sarcasm, or were you serious? Please elaborate - thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was pretty serious. If someone is saying that, we should block them, and there needs to be a place to report that. -Amarkov blahedits 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: What is your rationale for blocking someone for calling you stupid? Its not vandalism, the policy is that in extreme cases a block may result so I'm wondering what your reasoning is. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply calling me stupid isn't enough to warrant a block. Calling me stupid, in all capital letters, while swearing at me, is certainly enough to warrant a block. -Amarkov blahedits 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, you had me worried for a minute, I thought perhaps stress was making you a little bit touchy. Glad to have that cleared up. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: TfD
If anything, what you did was more uncivil than what I was doing; the TfD Article is not a place for this discussion. I WAS addressing a user about his wikipedian conduct, primarily, his tendencies to revert anything he gets his hands on. My first "contact" with him WAS less polite than I normally am, but I still was sending a message. I do admit that "I" would have taken it as Civil2 worthy, but that isn't what I received.

The user in question took my rather harsh statement, reverted his talk page, and gave me a vandalism warning. Now, this is what started the half debate I had with him, I don't know how to USE the templates... so I merely copied it over. Aggressive? Yes, but I felt that he should learn a few things.

Don't quite know why I felt that copying it over would help, but that is classifiable as aggressive conduct, and still civil2. He reverted and comments a reply. I replied to his reply claiming that he isn't an administrator and shouldn't be issuing violations, and yet another arrogant commented reply. At this point I was a tad bit more clear than my previous replies, stating that not only is he not an administrator (I figured that since the violation threatens banment, that only an administrator should be allowed to issue it.) but that the situation that he deemed as vandalism were not vandalistic.

Now I find it bad enough when someone falsely issues one warning, but he pulls out the 3RR violation, if anything, the violation was his own. The reverts he made on his talk page count against him, not me, because "You Do Not Own Your Talk Page". Reverting your talk page to get rid of a criticism (not to be confused with personal attacks) is both rude and inconsiderate.

At this point I dropped the "annoyed" act and wrote in the pathetic way I am writing currently, a little biased, but still more informative rather than inflammatory. As usual, this takes longer than the simple fragmented sentences of normal conversation... and since I was determined to make him see his err, I even opened up the policies he was using to quote directly from them... unfortunately, I was unable to post it.

In my opinion, the ban that pursued was a favor. Pulling out WP:POINT is absurd. That is mainly used for destructive or disruptive activities, n. His comment of "3RR - blocked", which I interpreted as an consensus that the 3RR rule was broken, is also absurd because directly in the policy it states that reverts of the user page do not count.

My argument that pursued weren't designed as defensive mechanisms, but rather offensive; I know that the wikipedian administrators are highly unlikely to go against the initial judgment. I made a point to the administrators that any true admin would see is a request to investigate the persecutor and the witness. The secondary was a little more defensive of my actions, trying to explain the reason and purpose.

(Sorry for the length) 131.247.241.212 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I could produce a step by step refute of that, but it is really much easier to just note that you say that he violated 3RR by removing your warning from his talk page, and you have the audacity to complain 2 paragraphs down about how you were blocked for the same thing, and not even on your talk page. -Amarkov blahedits 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 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 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Digital Photography Review DRV
You said you would AfD it if it was recreated without multiple independant third-party reliable sources, so I won't steal your thunder. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT
Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the   template to    on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Able and Baker AFD-DRV yoyo
I see no attempt at discussion wrt Able and Baker with the previous closing admin. No one is even trying to form a consensus.

If there appears to be a conflict between deletion review and consensus based procedure, we should at least try to apply consensus first.

Anyone taking even 30 minutes out of their busy day to just form a consensus with David Gerard (closing admin) or one or more of the article creators. could have ended this silly DRV-AFD yoyo.

If people had already had a discussion and had ended up looking right twats, then I'd say the whole AFD would have been useful to at least force the issue, but as I see it, no one has even discussed the issue much. It's just direct to AFD and no discussion whatsoever. You'd think people would catch a clue after maybe 2 or 3 yoyos back and forth, but we've gone up to the 5th. :-P

--- Kim Bruning 22:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm afraid I don't understand. The previous closer cut off the debate early, against deletion processes, with "speedy keep, please do not nominate unless someone willing and able to show their expert in the field says to". That's not going to result in consensus, that's going to result in "You can't nominate this because you're stupid". Discussion should have continued, and now it is. -Amarkov blahedits 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to say that people should have discussed with Phil Sandifer earlier... but apparently he hasn't been replying to requests, afaict. I'm going to talk with him first.


 * Note that an expert making comments on his subject area can be considered an overriding opinion. In that light David Gerards closure was correct and properly documented.


 * I would still prefer to see an end to the AFD-DRV yoyo. We've already had 5(?) yo-yos back and forth, so perhaps it's time for some other procedure to be applied. (The jury is still out on whether this would be a simple application of mere common sense, or whether ParkingLotTherapy may be required somewhere along the line ;-).
 * -- Kim Bruning 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We didn't, though. Two AfDs were closed as delete, and in the third, it was kept. I don't think DRV was involved. Then there's an out of process closure based on the misrepresentation that it's been kept many times before, which was properly overturned. -Amarkov blahedits 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now to do even more homework :-)


 * deleted in 2004
 * recreated in 2005
 * oct 2005 Afd decides to ...delete... recreation? But Admin overturns self maybe it was keep? submits to AFD->
 * New AFD end october 2005 says yes, Confirm keep of recreation
 * new afd called in 2007, speedy kept.
 * drv to overturn speedy keep
 * 2nd afd in 2007

Meh, that's almost even crazier than what I thought was going on before. :-/

--Kim Bruning 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we managed to get people talking with Phil Sandifer now. It turns out that he's also been working on issues with the Reliable Sources guideline. Gets around, doesn't he?

I guess this is the best that can be done for now. Perhaps some of the discussion might make it back to RS, who knows.

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me early on! :-)

Kim Bruning 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My image question
Thanks for your replies. To whom should I present the email transcript of the image acquiring? Thanks.  Dooms Day349  17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just post it on the image talk page. -Amarkov blahedits 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * K, thanks mate.  Dooms Day349  18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic-link deletion review
You endorsed the "no consensus" ruling, and I have addressed this at Deletion review, where I invite you to take a second look. — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything which changes my opinion, but thanks. -Amarkov blahedits 03:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change
Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-wide MySpace ban.
I'm pretty confused about this, and want to find a place to discuss it, but apparently there's no JimbofD page. It seems that when it's publicly announced, and covered in magazine interviews and so on that directors are using MySpace to reach out to fans during a film's production, this is definitely a Reliable Source, as the director's posts constitute a definite Primary Source. Where can I go to appeal this? ThuranX 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I have no idea, I just know that Jimbo banned it. You're going to have to ask someone else, sorry. You could just ask Jimbo here, but I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. -Amarkov blahedits 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn. This isn't fair. Those two sites were reported on in Magazines as big as Empire, and are undoubtedly the 'real' persons claimed. Both contain interesting replies to fans and rumors, as well as actively updating fans on progress. It's regretable that something's caused Jimbo to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thanks anyways. Asking there will be my last resort. ThuranX 05:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Another editor on those pages, User:Erikster has found an Admin who says the two pages can be added to the Whitelist. It's on my talk page and his. He's going to try to find an Admin to do it. ThuranX 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (oops, you're not yet an Admin, thoguht you were. My mistake.)ThuranX 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 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 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TROUT
For your future slapping needs :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Usernames
Hi Amarkov. I've noticed that a couple of your recent edits to WP:RFCN haven't really addressed the concerns at hand. Comments there should ideally give your opinion about a name, backed up with reference to Username, and your interpretation of that policy. Your comment regarding User:OhOurGod's name was ""I consider this offensive" doesn't mean it's offensive, and even if it can be, that doesn't mean that it must be blocked.", which made no reference to whether you believed the name itself to be permitted by the policy. Potentially offensive usernames are to be avoided under the terms of the policy, and can therefore be blocked. No doubt you'll get a better feel for username debates if you continue to contribute there, and I hope you do. Ensuring fair enforcement of policies is a responsibility of admins, and as you appear to be interested in future adminship your conduct on such pages will likely be noticed by others. Cheers, Deizio talk 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The point is not to defend the letter of the policy, the point is to defend the spirit, which is simply to prevent offensive usernames. -Amarkov blahedits 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of each discussion on the board is to debate a particular username. Enjoy your break, Deizio talk 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion
Since you've commented on the page before, please tell me if you consider this edit an improvement. Thanks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. Sorry for not responding earlier. -Amarkov blahedits 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you reconsider
this. You folks were sniffing up the wrong tree. Best regards // Fra nkB 01:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Congress
Would you be so kind as to go here and weigh in on the discussion? --Appraiser 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... why? I know nothing about the subject... -Amarkov blahedits 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

csd edits
Very helpful edits at CSD criteria. Thanks. DGG 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -Amarkov blahedits 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Runescape edit Kill archiveme
Lighten up! You remove templates, not kill them. After all that template was just "born" several hours earlier! I made it just for that use! Dont kill my templates. please. i just want to let you know im p15s3d and #*^%. ok. not really. I thought this edit summary was sooooooooo great it deserved it's own section on a talk page somewhere. =).  → p00rleno (lvl 81) ← ROCKS CRS  00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)  
 * O.o.0.O. -Amark moo! 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
This is to thank you for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Did you really post this on 223 talk pages? -Amark moo! 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I put some more thoughts on my userpage as well. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC and illuminating talk page
Hi Amarkov. Do you think the idiocy here should be deleted as stupid racist provocation or left in situ as evidence of the stupid racist provocation some people will get up to? Palmiro | Talk 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really care all that much; do whatever you want. -Amark moo! 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for your support in the discussion on ANI last night. Interesting ending to the thread, too.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adminship #2
I see above that when another user proposed nominating you for adminship, you responded via email. So I won't be surprised to get an email. Would you like to be nominated? If nominated, would you accept? If you accepted, would you be given the mop? If given the mop, what would you do with it? If it takes you a month and a half to definitively answer; that is how long it took me so I won't be concerned. GRBerry 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 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 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I very much appreciate your taking the time and effort to remark on the RfC against me. That littany of charges and the act of being singled out made me feel like disease of week - it was kind of an emotional shock since that isn't how I see myself.

It did me a lot of good to receive objective comments and unbiased support like yours and others since yours. Simoes has recinded his certification and I assume the thing will be deleted at some point. I presume that he he read your comments, comments by others who said about the same thing, and read my refutation of the evidence and charges and decided he didn't want to sully his name through further association.

Now I know, first hand, that an honest voice speaking out makes a big difference in the kind of place Wikipedia is. Well, thanks again and best wishes, Steve 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC Trodel
Thank you for catching the missing l in bullying. I unfortunately have little more proofreading tools than spellcheck, and it tends to cause problems for me. if there are any other problems, please, let me know so I can correct them. Thank you. TheGreenFaerae 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I have responded -- Trödel 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree my behavior has been uncharacteristically bad with this user - he just seems to bring out the worst in me -- Trödel 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 / Arbcom
If it's not Arbcom that makes desysopping decisions, who is it? The Bureaucrats can sysop, but not desysop. I'm not asking for his blood - desysopping in accordance with his own declared intentions sounds plenty reasonable to me. Reswobslc 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check some logs, but I'm relatively sure he has already been desysopped upon leaving. -Amark moo! 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He blocked himself, but he can also unblock himself. Also, the phrase "I'm leaving" comes from him regularly. See this log to see how many times he's actually left for good, only to be right back. He'll be back, as an administrator still, unless someone desysops him. Reswobslc 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... yes, I knew that. I assumed that he had been desysopped, which, as it turns out, he was not. I've withdrawn my statement. -Amark moo! 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)