User talk:Amarkov/Archive 4

[insert signature bot name] is turned off on my talk page. Feel free not to sign your comments if you don't want to.

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.

Adding Support to RFA comments

Technically, it's true that you don't need to write Support to support an RFA candidate but it seems to me that it would make the closing bureaucrat's job easier. If not, then why does anybody bother writing Support or Oppose? I won't revert your reversion because it seems hardly worth the effort to incite an edit war over. However, I ask you to reconsider your position and not revert such an edit if it ever happens again. --Richard 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that make the closing bureaucrat's job easier? They have a numbering, there are seperate sections, it doesn't really matter if you say "support" at the beginning. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-school

I have nominated this template for deletion because it is a speedy deletion template that does not represent any current criterion for speedy deletion. You may discuss the matter at WP:TFD. Stifle (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I applaud your efforts to make tagging articles for speedy deletion easier. Even though this one may not stick, please don't give up the fight! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a template request, but thanks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fix

Sorry if the typo fix bothers you - I was using the User:Lupin/Live spellcheck It had Ignore talk pages checked but I guess I should also have Ignore pages outside the article namespace checked. I was not paying as close attention to the content as I should have - I meant no offence just trying to do clean stuff up. Markco1 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take offense, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a kick in the you know where. Cheers Markco1 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for adopting me. I hope to be a good editor, but realize that this will probably take a fair bit of time. As a result I have largely been confining myself to making small edits that I know are proper while I figure out how everything works. If you have any advice I would be glad to hear it. I will likely be asking you a myriad of questions as I get the hang of things here. Shimaspawn 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELAC issues

I note that you previously commented at Template_talk:Long-article-committee. There's ongoing discussion about the wording of the template, if you'd like to weigh in. Cheers, Gzkn 12:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's lengthy discussion about the tag (among other thing) here. Gzkn 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And some on the committee have joined only to support suggestions and assistance, not anything stronger.DGG 05:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yes, that may be true. I missed your point, so could you please tell me what it is? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin discretion

Overturn deletion. "Admin discretion" doesn't mean "delete whatever you feel like if you disagree with people who want it kept", or "Ignore given sources if you don't like them". -Amarkov ^blah_edits – [1]

Did you have a look at the AfD discussion before making this comment?
In case you did, (which I am presuming that you did); can you pin-point where exactly is a reliable source given as to establish the notability of the game?
I am assuming that you could not have a look at the article page itself, which did not cite any reliable third-party sources which asserted notability.
Most of the google hits – [2] – present here are links to either forums, blogs or game development wikis.
There was no way for me to ascertain that this game had featured on one of CNN's articles; except perhaps by doing this – [3]
Do you know why non-admins are generally discouraged from closing AfDs? An army of newbie users who do not know what policies and guidelines mean do not constitute consensus nor are they ready to take decisions that would directly affect the mainspace articles on Wikipedia. There is a good reason why Wikipedia is not a democracy.
I would like you to have a look at WP:ILIKEIT.
Your words were rather rude and hurtful; as I did a lot of work before deleting that article; and let me assure you that I neither ignore any source nor do I have any kind of biases against.. uh.. random people.
As per the new evidence produced by Eloquence I have undeleted the article and notified on the concerned WP:DRV page.

Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. I could have sworn there were more sources given in the AfD than that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sorry; but your words are greatly appreciated. Warm thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This is Starwarsnut from Runescape; I just noticed your name so I thought I'd say hi! 66.0.141.195 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you notice my name? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the Roast Beef image on the Roast Beef page and it said it linked to some of your pages. I am at home now so my sig will be different. 4.88.101.115 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could make an account? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could but I'd prefer not to. 4.88.99.120 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

-

Hello Amarkov! I want to thank you for taking time to comment in my recent request for adminship. Though it didn't succeed, I value everyone's opinion, and hope to use the descriptions of the neutral and oppose votes to improve. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Ok, that's all I needed to know. I wasn't sure if it had been long enough either, and I was having trouble formating it. Thanks, I will try again in a few months or so. Fortyniners9999 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Amarkov/Archive 4, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience; for this I shall welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 03:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

I have three "My RfA" headings in a row. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but adding this thread has prevented you from gaining that elusive 4-in-a-row :-) David Ruben ^Talk 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0.0. How did you come to see my talk page? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cos I have the "Watch this page" option ticked as a default (via my preferences I think) and I had posted the RfA thanks note above, finally LoL edit summaries are generally good to read to lighten up ones mood :-) David Ruben ^Talk 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA comments

Hey there Amarkov, I'm a fellow RuneScape player (well, I was...before I quit and came to Wikipedia), and I was just wondering about some of your RfA votes. I know you're probably very familiar with RfA's by now, but I was just curious why you go neutral against some candidates based on the number of talk page edits they have. I mean, I don't have any problems with that, but I am just wondering what number of talk page edits are you usually looking for in admin candidates. Thanks. =) Nishkid 64 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should spend more time in the mainspace editing articles, rather than in the Wikipedia namespace. We need good editors such as yourself to participate more in articles. Just a suggestion, heh. Nishkid 64 18:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look for a decent amount of WP talk edits. Lots of XfD participation can change that, though. I really look for policy discussion over most other things for admin candidates. And I try to do article cleanup, but it really gets boring fast. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have an editor review, please?

Hi Amarkov! I was wondering, provided you had enough time, if you could give me an editor review. I want to improve my editing skills on Wikipedia, and hope that your advice would benefit me in doing this. Please give me a critical review ... feel free to say, "Yuser31415 does this really badly", because that's what I need to get better on that point. Thank you for your time!

Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that some time tomorrow, when I'm not tired enough that I'll probably do something stupid, like mistake some indefblocked user's edits for yours. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, tomorrow for sure. I hope you don't mind incredibly much. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I decided to end it; more time is needed, and I probably need a bit more experience. From here, I think I'll look at community discussion, AfD and the like. I will try to improve in the areas of concern, and thanks to everyone who supplied feedback. -- Selmo ^(talk) 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Thank you so much, Amarkov, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown1023 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for considering my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sides are at fault? OK, if you say so.

But could you please explain how I am at fault in the discussion? Because I really have tried to be factual, reasonable and not do any personal attacks and follow all wikipedia policy as closely as possible. So where did I go wrong? --Regebro 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Maybe other places, I don't know. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that? That is not even an insult. And how does that compare to the barrage of insults Huaiwei has thrown over me, and make me as bad as him? I really don't see that. --Regebro 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a barrage of insults. And that is bad. You're implying that the "Signaporeans" should be ignored because there's a disproportinate number of them on Wikipedia. Apparently also defining "Signaporean" as "anyone who disagrees with me here". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and many of the things you listed are not personal attacks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but most are, and they are all ad hominem arguments and various accusations of me doing things I haven't done. Maybe that's not a personal attack per se, but I don't see it's much better or acceptable. --Regebro 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that you have done most of them. And having invalid arguments isn't grounds for a user RFC. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Which of them have I done? And I'm not making an RfC because he has invalid arguments, but because he persists with personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. (Oh, and I have already said I'm sorry if any Singaporean took that comment above negatively, btw). --Regebro 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made that Signaporean comment, which seems to be what the bulk of the diffs are about. You also did express the positions he claims you did, usually. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is it bad to express positions? The problem with Huaiwei in my opinion is his personal attacks, not his position. on the issue. I want to discuss the issue, he attacks me. You say both sides are equally bad. I still don't understand what I have done that is equally bad as what Huaiwei did, and I'm starting to suspect that you don't either. Perhaps you took my questions as an attack on your standpoint, making you defend yourself. It isn't. I just want to know what I did that makes you feel that I have behaved as badly as Huaiwei. --Regebro 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Sorry.... my mistake there! shouldnt have suggested it! --SunStar Net^talk 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --SunStar Net^talk 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anal stretching

I'm on Wikibreak because my laptop's out of service, so I edit whenever I can. :-) Anyway, my deletion rationale was G4 as reposted content; you may want to see the original AfD for reference. theProject 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just wanted to see the actual thing deleted. User:JzG already did it, so it's okay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Didn't realize who you were talking to. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, I can see how easily it could be confusing. ^_^ --Cat out 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

G'day Amarkov. This is probably a question which is absurdly simple for you, but how does one make a template have one of those links which says "show/hide" and which can be clicked to reveal the masses of articles that are to be found in the template in question? The kind of thing I'm talking about is on the top-right corner of Template:Countries and territories of Oceania. Is there a specific code for it, or does it just happen automatically in the way that pages just grow tables of contents when they reach a particular number of headings? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of a Wikitable, if you put class="navbox collapsible collapsed" right after the {|, it will create the show/hide button. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, omitting the "collapsed" will make it shown as a default. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whismur AFD

I'm sympathetic to what you wanted to accomplish by sending Whismur (a terrible article, BTW) to AFD. There's some sympathy at the Pokémon wikiproject for disposing of such articles somehow, probably with some sort of merge. Thing is, nobody can think of an idea for a merge that even satisfies themself, let alone anyone else. If you have any ideas on how to merge them, it'd probably accomplish a lot more than sending them to AFD one by one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want a merge, though. I'll try to think of an idea, someone has to. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"featured topic" mfd

hi, just to drop you note to support your suggestion of deletion of the "featured topic" project/proposal entirely, as it seems to me unworkable, and transfers "featuredness" to articles that dont deserve it.

for instance, it was slapped on halloween, halloween 2, halloween 3 and "halloween film series". except that "halloween film series" is an atrocious mess of an article, yet its now conferred equal status with the other 3 FAs despite not going through any FAC process. on top of that, what about halloween 4, 5, 6, 7, 8? are they part of this "halloween films" featured topic? why separate out the first 3 films and ignore the next 5?

i think no article should get the "featured-" prefix without being an fa.... this just appears to be lowering the standards for featuredness. i.e. poor related articles "riding on the back of" an FA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.114.94.194 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A polite informative

I'd just like to politely say I disagree with your opinions in several subjects I've come across involving you. Not an insult or personal attack.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike you. I just disagree. =) Metnik 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I like disagreement. It would be rather boring if everyone agreed with me, except on one or two things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Because I award you the:

Image:TipOftheHat.jpg

Tip of the Hat Award

This Tip of the Hat Award has been given to Amarkov because I disagree with you but your still awesome!

Award given by Metnik

Thanks. I've put it up on the top of my page, except with a public domain picture instead. Sorry if you cared. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, No prob. Just a random image I had. Metnik 00:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]