User talk:Amarkov/Archive 9
 | Amarkov is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in moo days. |
[insert signature bot name] is turned off on my talk page. Feel free not to sign your comments if you don't want to.
TfD of "death date and age"
Please read the commentary I gave on the page. --PhantomS 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 04:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Hi, my RFA passed last night and I wanted to thank you for your well explained neutral. Despite the fact that I don't contribute that much to policy articles, I do have them all in my watchlist and see the changes and discussion. I just don't always feel the need to respond. Nevertheless, I won't close the next GNAA AFD tomorrow. :) Good luck on your own RFA. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA
I am sure you are disappointed at the outcome of your RfA, and I will add that I am as well, primarily on your merits and, secondarily, out of sentiment given the extremely early and kind support you gave to my own nomination.
I know you aren't going to change your entire role on the project and personality as an editor just to enhance your chances of becoming an administrator, but I hope the remarks I offered on the RfA page were helpful, and I wish you the best as you continue to contribute to the project. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it would make me feel better to say that my editing pattern was why I failed, but it isn't. Civility was brought up too, and I admit that I've only been good at that fairly recently, and people did say that they might be willing to support despite lack of diversity if I had more experience. So while I'm not going to start article writing, I'm going to work on the other two, and hopefully be able to help clear out that stupid CSD backlog at some point. -Amarkov moo! 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could have a look at ways to contribute in the mainspace that you would find fun. Might you enjoy categorising articles for example? I would have though helping out at Category:Uncategorized would be seen as valuable work and combines well with patrolling for CSD and AfD contenders. Orphaned articles is another area that often doesn't receive as much attention as it should. As I said in your RfA I don't think you should feel pressured into making edits you don't enjoy- just making suggestions for what could interest you in mainspace. WjBscribe 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS. Just saw that you withdrew your RfA. Sorry it didn't go better. I think you'd have made a fine admin. WjBscribe 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually looking at dealing withCategory:Wikipedia articles with nonstandard pronunciation, although I'm trying to figure out why things like that count as "article writing". Don't steal my category. -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could have a look at ways to contribute in the mainspace that you would find fun. Might you enjoy categorising articles for example? I would have though helping out at Category:Uncategorized would be seen as valuable work and combines well with patrolling for CSD and AfD contenders. Orphaned articles is another area that often doesn't receive as much attention as it should. As I said in your RfA I don't think you should feel pressured into making edits you don't enjoy- just making suggestions for what could interest you in mainspace. WjBscribe 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Heading Change
You should be aware of this edit I recently made, as it may effect your polling response. I made the edit in response to concerns on the talk page about the neutrality of the question. Cheers! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, it doesn't, but thanks anyway. -Amarkov moo! 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Mistaken?
Hi Amarkov! I'm not entirely sure what you were doing here; perhaps you were mistaken? I've reverted your change for now, please let me know what you were doing. Cheers! Yuser31415 02:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is... odd. I do not remember ever doing that. -Amarkov moo! 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. Yuser31415 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Amarkov. that reply u posted above on the 17.2.07 . it's made me suspicious. have u any membories of people in black suits with a pen-like devise--I.W 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. Yuser31415 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I forgot my first-post frivolous topic. I'll make it longer than usual as penance.
Haha, silly Hagermanbot double can't catch me; it's disabled for both me and my talk page.
- MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO MOO COW!
- MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO COW! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs).
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 07:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"Feeding the sense of entitlement to run amok" by requiring articles to be verified by reliable sources
Swpb persists in tearing down the Terry Shannon wiki, while making no contributions of his own. The Terry Shannon wiki is presently boring, uninformative, and devoid of anything close to a portrait of the man about whom it was begun. In addition, the Charlie Matco wiki has been completely removed; internal links to Charlie Matco point back to the Terry Shannon wiki, again because of the vandalism perpetrated by Swpb. If this wasn't about such a close personal friend of mine, I wouldn't even care. But it is, and I do care very much. Is this something that must be accepted?
- The issue is, Wikipedia is not a memorial. All articles are supposed to be written in a neutral tone, with all information verified by reliable sources. Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying that any particular editor is really being truthful, so we can't allow information solely from personal knowledge. -Amarkov moo! 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If your rationale is that you "have no way of verifying that any particular editor is really being truthful," then you feed the sense of entitlement people like Swpb to run amok. Very well. In that case, I am out of here.
The Cape 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)DrMemory (Dr. Tom Capo)The Cape 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
ph scale
as a reply to this. So basicly the answer to my question is the ph of sugar is 7. so what it the ph rating for the rest. thx --I.W 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That was part of my point. As far as I'm aware, there is no such thing as the pH of a pure substance, only of the substance dissolved in a certain amount of water. -Amarkov moo! 20:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Pardon my jumping in here but I see that Amarkov is on wikibreak. pH is a defined concept only for liquid solutions. It can be a liquid other than water, but it has to be a liquid. Sugar is not considered acidic nor basic, so the pH of sugar water should be 7 or something very close to it. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Christopher_Lotito
I have provided a detailed rebuttable to claims that I am a non-notable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20#Christopher_Lotito -- since you last weighed in on the topic. Please do look at it and consider the new information I've provided. Thank you.