User talk:Amarkov/Archive 3

Archives

---

Main talk ∞ 1 ∞ 2 ∞ 3 ∞ 4 ∞ 5 ∞ 6 ∞ 7 ∞ 8 ∞ 9 ∞ 10 ∞ 11 ∞ 12 ∞ 14 ∞ 15 ∞ 16

Archive 3 of Amarkov's talk

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

RfB

3 expanded. Thanks. - crz crztalk 05:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your enthusiastic support and confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You dare take time out of admin tasks to send 104 thank you notes? Get back to work. :P -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I was deleting things before I ever thanked my nominator... hmph. Ingrate. ;) -- nae'blis 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls

You have recently commented on AfDs for Shopping Malls. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cant Believe U fell for it...

Im suprised U fell for it even with the oldversion thingy above it. lol. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone makes a mistake and didn't notice...

...you could always simply re-add what I accidentally clipped instead of leaving a snarky comment. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm tired, so it didn't occur to me to re-add it. And I didn't mean to come across as rude. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Now that I've changed, I'd just liked to say that I'm sorry, I know that my edits were very rash, but you were right. I propose that we form a friendship.--Rat235478683--

Um... maybe, eventually, but I've never been a person to form friendships spontaneously. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hello thank you for participating in Llama mans RFA. You voted neutral because you thought most of his edits to the mainspace were scripty stuff. I am just curious what you mean by that, thanks and please let me know when you get the chance. Cheers!__Seadog ^♪ 02:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups. I'll go clarify that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CFD recategorisation edit summaries

Please could you link to the relevant CFD discussion that you are recategorising articles as a result of, rather than just WP:CFD. It is not always easy to find the debate, to see what the reasoning is, etc.

Thanks, Thryduulf 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra RFA questions

Hi. Thank you for asking the additional questions on my RFA. Just to let you know that I have answered those and others asked by other users. Thank you for taking such an interest in my nomination. Wikiwoohoo 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see please,

Endorse deletion among established editors,means no prejudice to re-create a new article?This is in the case of Sorin Cerin conclusion.Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Occasionally, an article is deleted not because the subject is necessarily bad, but because the article is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your input on my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I understand your concerns and I agree that I'm not as well-rounded as other admins are. I am primarily focused on vandalism reverts as you noted, but I will work on expanding my participation in other areas (after reading up and learning the ropes, of course). I hope that my future activities on Wikipedia will change your mind about me. Thanks again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbComm Vote

Sorry. I hadn't kept close track of when I registered. I hope there was no inconvenience. I spent a lot of time reading up before I voted. Next year. Stompin' Tom 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tags

Hi, I have a question I was hoping you could answer as an admin. If I shouldn't be asking this here I apologise. Having read WP:NPOV and related pages through again, I see that it is expected that use of the {{POV}} tag is accompanied by a reasonably full explanation on the talk page of the article. I was wondering is there any concensus that such tags can be removed if no explanation is given (or it is only a very basic ie. "I disagree" comment is made without citing problem areas and explaining the discrepancy)? There is a huge backlog of tags which undermine articles. Many seem to just be added when someone reads the topic which does not support their own POV on the subject. Thanks. WJBscribe 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If the tagger did not explain what constituted POV, I think it would be reasonable to make a request for explanation on the talk page, and remove the tag if none is given within, say, a week. But I'm not an admin. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Yeah, I just saw that from the admin list. My bad (sorry!). But that makes sense. Cheers, WJBscribe 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete vote at Template:QED

Hi, I noticed you voted to keep this template. Since you don't seem to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, I feel compelled to ask: have you ever once computed a Feynmann diagram? If not, please strike your vote, and try to abstain from voting on subjects with which you are not familiar. linas 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I know a good amount about quantum electrodynamics. Please don't be condescending. And why is your section header inconsistent with the text? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't seen you edit articles in physics or math before, I assumed the worst. I guess I'm surprised to think a physicist would vote to keep. What section header do you refer to? linas 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The one up there. "Delete vote at Template:QED. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have yourself listed as a teenager who knows a lot about Pokemon and computer games. Which tells me that either you are a liar, or a genius, and I doubt the latter, as I've never heard of a teenager who knew QFT before. Prove me wrong, tell me the name of this equation: $\partial \!\!\!\!/\psi =0$ linas 06:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that much, but as I believe I said over at the TfD, it doesn't matter. I know enough to make an informed decision. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of famous TALL people

Hi, I told User:Ineffable3000 I would nominate the articles List of famous tall men and List of famous tall women but can't seem to get it right as there has been a previous nomination. Can you help? WJBscribe 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've managed to it myself. If you have a sec when you're next on Wikipedia to check it's done correctly I would be very grateful. WJBscribe 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

take a look please

The article with Sorin Cerin have been re-created and now is not poor like before and look more serious.What you say?Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.114.26.107 (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Un-true

When used in a userpage it is being used to illistrate a Item, Person or orginization. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it fair use. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

Hi, can you merge these two pages (and talk pages) Wikipedia:Longpages and Wikipedia talk:Special:Longpages together somehow, they seem to be the same thing? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. The content from the main page died, but oh well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, good work! P.S. are you going to join our group: WP:ELAC? Help, from time-to-time, from you would be appreciated. I've commented on your other question at the project talk page. --Sadi Carnot 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How much more discussion do we need?

As much as required for community consensus. Tulkolahten 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... yes... that doesn't really say anything. I thought community consensus was pretty clear. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty clear no doubt, but a few votes only :( AfD with few votes stays long long time without decision. Tulkolahten 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

lists

"What reason is there to have these huge unwieldly lists of things that are entirely unrelated, other than being fictional cities?" <-- Many people find lists easier to use than categories. If a large number of Wikipedians take the time to create a list that in itself should tell you something. If you are not interested in such a list, just move on. I suggest you find ways to do some actual work to help the encyclopedia rather than destroy the work of others. --JWSchmidt 14:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop being patronizing and let me try to clean out the bad things, rather than just ignoring them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ELAC

Hi, thanks for joining the WP:Extra-Long Article Committee. Short on time today; you will usually see me doing most of my wiki-work Mon-Wed (and sometimes on Sat and Sun), approximately. I suggest that we draw up an ELAC constitution or charter (i.e. guidelines) that we all can agree on. An example might include giving pages ample notice, in terms of weeks, as to when a particular page is scheduled for committee involvement. More ideas on this later, talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are now the Roast Beef King

This Beefy Honor I Bestow up to You!

I, Rohtul, dub thee the roast beef King. 66.81.190.110 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA Cliche #1

Wait, you're not an admin? Seriously, you speak with the tone of one with experience and authority, which is probably why people assume that. Would having the mop and bucket help you at Wikipedia? Your age-of-service (since September) is probably a little low for some people, so if you want to wait, that's fine too. -- nae'blis 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's someone who wants to nominate me in February, and I think I should wait until then. But thanks anyway! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I have responded to your comments on Pmanderson's RfA. I believe you may have misread the diff you linked. --Robth^Talk 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to jump down your throat about this, but I also don't like people making incorrect assertions. Here is the material Pmanderson restored:

Much of Dewey's work made claims about Business cycles. This subject has been hotly debated; for instance Philip Ball in his book Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another remarks:

The truth is that dips and peaks in the economy resolutely refuse to recur in any predictable manner, making attempts to construct cyclic theories of economics look increasingly like Ptolemy's elaborate scheme for predicting the motions of the planets

Now I can see how the nonstandard formatting (lack of quotation marks or blockquote tags, attribution before the quotation) could have thrown you off here, but if you're going to use a diff as an example of someone's misbehavior, take the time to make sure it says what you think it does. --Robth^Talk 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It does say what I think it does. That something else was intended is fine, but the intention doesn't matter in encyclopedia articles. What matters is what is actually said, and that quote says that the first paragraph is sourced, and the second isn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious what's going on there (and even more so in the context of the article, where it is presented alongside several similarly patterned phrases). If I say "X remarks:^[1] blah blah blah", it doesn't take a genius to see that the "blah blah blah" is a quotation and the footnote is the source for it. I'm not going to bother you further about this, but please do consider whether you wish to present this diff in the way you have on that RfA, as an example of a "In reality, X, so person Y is wrong" sentence. --Robth^Talk 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do. We'll just disagree about this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected

It's more along the lines of "nobody except the author thinks this is a good idea". It's not the amount of people that counts, it's the reasoning. (Radiant) 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But five people can't possibly generate enough discussion to see all the reasoning necessary. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy

on the Halo Physics. You're the best!!! -- Ben (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... You're welcome, but I didn't do it. I just closed it, because someone else had speedied. I'm not an admin. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

d'oh! :) Have fun. -- Ben (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam AfD and WP:POINT

Okay, fine. I just thought certain editors were taking things a bit too far, and so I did as well. Ooops. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)