User talk:Amarkov/Archive 6

[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.

Your editing

Don't bash me for expressing some concerns here, but I think I stand with many others who feel that you really should stop spending all your time editing on the Wikipedia-namespace. You're a valued contributor, and I would appreciate it if you could contribute a bit more to articles instead of discussions.

Just take a look at this: 2000 edits since December 2, 2006: Edit count by namespace:

Article: 11.6% (232) | Article talk: 3.05% (61)
User: 6.8% (136) | User talk: 13.15% (263)
Wikipedia: 52.55% (1051) | Wikipedia talk: 9.5% (190)
Image: 0.15% (3) | Image talk: 0.1% (2)
Template: 1.9% (38) | Template talk: 0.95% (19)
Category: 0.25% (5) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)

Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.2% (4)

This is good: Unmarked edits with no summary: 0.05% (1 edit(s))

But seriously, edit the encyclopedia. That's why we're here, right? Nishkid 64 01:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yeah. Encyclopedias don't thrive from just article writing. They need behind-the-scenes stuff too. And any large amount of mainspace edits I made would be pointless AWB stuff, so I don't really see the point. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice and you should take it. You could do a lot more good fixing than you ever will by destroying. Of course, it's harder work, but not impossible. Grace Note 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... No I couldn't. It would be nice if everyone could just write the encyclopedia, and everything were fine, but in reality, there has to be removal of the bad things, because there is no requirement of expertise, or even intelligence, to edit Wikipedia. And even if there were, well-meaning intelligent people can still be biased on whether an article they wrote is actually notable or verifiable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spending all of your time at AfD and RfA doesn't really help the encyclopedia. Sure, you're voting on the status of some articles, but I think you can spend more time writing articles (contribute to RuneScape for example!) than engaging in forum-style discussion with others in the project namespace. Also, the people who actually do spend their time on AfD's and RfA's also spend time on editing articles. Most other people would far more appreciate editing the encyclopedia than voting in some discussion. Nishkid 64 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably agree on the whole with Nishi, but I should observe, I think, that the notable edits and significant edits metrics suffer from some deficiencies (toward which, see, e.g., VoA's FAQ page); across my last 2000 contributions, for instance, I have created no fewer than fifteen non-stub articles and have rewritten entirely at least fourteen non-stub articles but am "credited" with having made just three notable and six significant edits. I don't mean to suggest that Nishi's point is in any way invalid, and I don't mean to suggest that the numbers the tools provides for Amarkov are wrong; I mean only to discourage our treating the notable and significant tallies as exact. Joe 05:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the numbers seem pretty good for me. I'm well aware that I don't contribute very much to article writing, but I really just find that... boring. I see your point, but I am not going to follow it. Wikipedia always has been, and always will be, something fun for me to do. I am not going to force myself to do boring things in service of the encyclopedia. If that makes me a worse contributor, I'll have to live with it, because it won't change. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Joe. It is inaccurate. I made over 12 articles (6,000KB+ each) in the last week or so, and it still says I don't have that many significant article edits. However, it is still a good general indicator of the type of editing a user does. The other point is valid, though. 11.2% to the article namespace is not that great. Whatever, suit yourself, Amarkov. I'm just trying to give friendly advice. Nishkid 64 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, though. I just don't agree with it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Click

Sorry for my somewhat terse response earlier. I was in a very rural area and did not have very good access to technology. Technically, you are correct that TfD is the place to bring templates for deletion discussions, the name of the place makes that obvious. However, the issue I was referring to in terms of the Click template was the issue of metadata in articles in general, the inclusion/removal of which seems to be lacking consensus. Another thing I was hitting on in my closing statement for the TfD was that no one admin could remove all of those transclusions competently and without problems if acting unilaterally. The template had over 1000 transclusions, which is a lot even for an account enabled with AutoWikiBrowser, which I usually use when deleting heavily transcluded templates. It just seemed to me that the sheer number and variety of the template's transclusions made it an inviable TfD nomination.

Now as for what alternatives we may have, there aren't many, they aren't likely to be simple. The template is transcluded in many places, from numerous articles to the markers for Featured Articles. It seems to me that one TfD nomination was not sufficient to justify deletion in all of those senses, that consensus must be achieved to remove the template in cases of type A, then in cases of type B, and so on, until the template has few transclusions and be deleted by one admin via TfD. I hope this clarifies my position in closing the TfD, and addresses your concerns. Also, I hope that my thoughts lay out al least some way to proceed with this deletion, which I do believe needs to take place. Sorry for the delay, and then the deluge of words in reply. Best regards and happy New Year, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your comment in the endorsement

I felt that it would reach the two person threshold because HighInBC tried to contact him here, User_talk:71.210.62.238 with regards to his personal attack on me. Am I correct, or did I misunderstand something somewhere? And if RfC isn't the best place to bring the matter up, where should I go to? RfA perhaps? Though I thought going to RfC would be a more gentle option towards Kreepy krawly to do instead. Mathmo ^Talk 06:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that. In that case, it should pass; all it requires is that it not be solely between two people, nobody else having ever heard of it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, I did read it correctly. Thanks! Mathmo ^Talk 07:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I have a comment to make on your RfA views, as seen on BostonMA's nomination amoung others. For a long time now I've been watching RfA and never commenting, but while your point is true I can't help feeling you are making it out to be more of a problem than it really is. When I ran for admin I had very rarely participated in XfD and never requested protection for a page. Presumably this means you would have opposed my nomination? Fair enough; you would have had no idea how I understand protection policy and XfD procedure.

My point is, I don't need to understand protection policy or XfD procedure because I never do those things. I've been an admin since March and I've never protected a page and haven't even visited XfD since then. I just have no interest in those areas, at least not at the moment, so where is the danger?. I like to think that people should be made admins not because they show familiarity with every aspect of the admin tools, but because they show responsibility enough to have them. If I ever wanted to protect a page, or developed a sudden interest in AfD, I'd read up on them first; I'd become familiar with the policies and procedures before doing anything. My feeling is that you should trust admin candidates to do the same. You don't need to ask "are they familiar with this area?", just "do I trust them to become familiar with this area before jumping in?" Raven4x4x 08:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will occasionally trust long-standing editors to do that. For instance, if you have like 15,000 edits, and have been here for a year, I'm unlikely to oppose you just for not having XfD participation. Also, I want XfD participation because that shows understanding of policy in general, which I believe any admin candidate needs. I don't trust answers to questions, it's too easy to decieve yourself on what you'll really do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV script

Hi Amarkov. I made my copy of the aiv.js script work on the Special:Contributions page in addition to "User:" and "User talk:" pages. The way I have done it may be monobook specific. Mike Dillon 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures are necessary

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with you. If we do not stick to proper procedures, Wikipedia just cannot work. You have made very many contributions to DRV and are no doubt very familiar with it.--Runcorn 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination) I did some ressearh this afternoon and found what might be independent sources establishing him as notable as the creator of the game and CEO of the company which produces it. I posted my links at the AfD discussion. I'm not sure how crdible the sources are, but one seem to be the London Times website, and the others seem to be outside of potential influence by the subject. I'm happy to rewrite the article if it appears that we will keep the article. I'm not a gamer but I saw the conversation at today's AfD log. --Kevin Murray 22:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Years, request

Wishing you a Happy New Year
from S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you ever get some free time, I would be honored if you reviewed me at my current editor review (the link to it can be found on my user page). Thanks! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gower deleted history

This article has no deleted edits in the history - indeed, the log says it's never been deleted. Was there a page at a different title? The previous AfD ended in 'redirect', perhaps the history behind the redirect wasn't deleted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. That's what I get for doing things on New Year's Eve. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Wikipedia:Admin coaching

Sure, I'll let you handle the moving to a seperate section. The list of pages. - Mailer Diablo 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Fresheneesz 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review, Memset Ltd

You are one of three editors that asked to see the deleted history of the article for the deletion review, which is on the 28th of December. It is now available. GRBerry 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

I like to have a section that says "Lol" right about here. Aaah, a Grue! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Check the history of Barrington Hall. One reversion dates back to November, and others during December are a week apart. Mistake made apparently while using AWB. Perhaps I violated 2 reverts per year rule? I don't think that's "edit-warring". But, perhaps you do? --Nearly Headless Nick 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. That isn't even consistent with the thing I signed a few statements down saying you didn't edit war. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone like restored

The page Someone like has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. GRBerry 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I saw you removed my WP:3O request. You suggested a [[WP:RFC] instead. RfC requires the comment to be on the relevant talk page of the article. A VfD doesn't have a talk page. Is there a more appropriate place to ask for third opinion on a VfD besides WP:3O? inigmatus 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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 07:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Amarkov: I notice that you are heavily involved in the deletion review process, and that you want to be an administrator in the future. I've edited Wikipedia lightly over the past few months and just made an account. I, too, would like to be a moderator or administrator in the future. Is the deletion review process a good way to go about doing that? Gisele Hsieh 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naw. Amarkov's just trying to be famous. ^_^ --Nearly Headless Nick 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart comments at DRV are certainly a good way to get my support. But the first step to becoming an admin is always article editing... ~ trialsanderrors 10:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, if that's true, I'm not going to get the admin bit any time soon. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Sounds great. Gisele Hsieh 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard, and my editing record certainly isn't stellar, but eversooften I have to remind myself that some articles need to be written. It was a major stumbling stone in MER-C's RFA, and his track record was otherwise exceptional. In any case, A, whenever you feel you have your service time (and your article editing) under your belt, I'd be happy to nominate you. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very kind offer... uh, for Amarkov. :) Gisele Hsieh 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll extend it to you too eventually, G. A differential equations quote on the user page is already a good start. Now on with the article editing... ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM #2

A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination).
brenneman 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need clarification on a point, let me know; otherwise, I don't think there's much to discuss. My guess is that you semi-automated these messages, so it probably isn't an issue, or you would have asked already. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only individualized some of the messages I sent out, because it is difficult to determine who has the inclination to discuss. I thank your for your willingness. Like a number of oppose votes, you say that my answer to Question 6 is a bit troubling. It would really help me if you could clarify what you find troubling. Also, I agree with you that when someone is made an admin they are given a variety of tools and need to be trusted with all of them. Accepting for the moment your position that I have insufficient experience with XfD, is there a reason why you would not trust me to avoid using tools in situations in which I might not be qualified? Perhaps you feel that it is a question of prudence to avoid giving such tools to someone who hasn't demonstrated their style, because it is much harder to take the tools back than to withhold them in the first place.(?) Anyway, I would very much like to hear more from you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second, it's just prudence; it's not like we have a huge shortage of admins, so while "we don't need admins" shouldn't be a reason not to support, we can be picky. And with the first, my problem is the "admins may delete" part. Speedy criteria are supposed to be things which are unambiguously reasons why something should be deleted (except maybe G11 and A7, those can just use cleanup), so the answer gives the implication that speedy criteria are wider than they really are. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I think that is a communication problem on my part. What I intended was not to imply that the speedy give greater latitude to deletion than they do, but to imply that they give latitude to admins to not delete articles even if they meet the standards for speedy deletion. The standard for G11 states:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

This standard allows, under specific conditions, the deletion of articles that could have been rewritten, provided that these articles "would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". If the business is notable, I would much prefer to reduce the article to a stub than delete it. That is what I was trying to convey with my answer to Q6, but I think I clearly failed to communicate that message clearly. Is it clearer now? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Just word it a bit more clearly next time. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokenum

I've made one edit, and it's a valid one. On the TFD, even most of the Keep voters acknowledge that the number of Pokemon does not need to be on every Pokemon page. I also fail to see why AWB is discouraged; I do not make any automated AWB edits outside of my bot's recognized usage, and shall keep my manual editing to a reasonable level. Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is discouraged for things which people might not want, because then it is hard to revert you. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no harder than me making the same edits any other way. Get the diff and hit undo. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...four hundred and ninty three times, for all the pages you would have removed it from. Regardless, it is not my idea, I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at RFC on Nandesuka

Hi,

Regarding your comment "Just do not even think of bringing up desysopping.": I'm not looking for a removal of his admin authority. Occasionally even good admins need a "reset" to recognise when they might be inappropriately using the powers granted them. Not even the most conscientious individuals always realise when they might be in falling into a conflict of interest, letting their personal opinions get in the way of fair judgment. Thanks, --Leflyman^Talk 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestion by Aaron Brenneman, I've placed these comments at the RFC's Talk page. You may reply there, if needs be. Thx,Leflyman^Talk 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect it, just wanted to make it clear how far I agreed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right.

Thank you for your advice. I just need a break... Yao Ziyuan 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-revert - thank you

I take off my hat to you. That was a big gesture to make. Best wishes, Metamagician3000 04:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:GW characters

Template:GW characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

akeytt

Hi there. I just had a look at your monobook.js and you're calling akeytt a lot of times that you don't need to. When using addOnloadHook(), the runOnloadHook() function that actually executes the hook functions calls akeytt itself. The only time it needs to be done again is if new links requiring access keys are added after runOnloadHook executes. You can remove it in every case that you're currently calling it and probably want to do so because it's one of the slower site-wide functions. Mike Dillon 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... what is an access key? I have no idea, and I don't want to break anything that needs it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't break anything. Just remove all the calls to akeytt() and your page will load faster. The akeytt() function changes the tooltips for links are in the ta[] array and the "access key" is a keyboard shortcut that allows you to "click" the link without clicking it (it shows up at the end of the tooltip as something like "[alt-t]"). Mike Dillon 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]