User talk:Amarkov/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archives

---

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

[edit] First topic

Cow cow cowbells cow!

[edit] Imagine Wizard's Club Penguin and Runescape page

But I didn't make the picture! someone else did. why are they aloud to use it then.

They aren't allowed to use it on user pages. -Amark moo! 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_19

Apparently, User:Heligoland accidentally reverted several comments on this page, including several of mine and a few of yours. I tried to put everything back, but you may want to check that I did it right. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Amarkov! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians born in XXXX

Amarkov, could you remove the tags on the "Wikipedians born in XXXX" categories you nominated, please? I'd appreciate that.--Mike Selinker 15:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about that. I'll get on it. -Amark moo! 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message by 65.85.205.66, left on my userpage

PISS OFF YOU SELF-RITEOUS COCKMONGER!

I like to keep track of everything people say to me. -Amark moo! 21:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AR and HD

Dmcdevit has actually compared HD using his IP, which was dug up. The results are on my userpage. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that Checkuser was run, and I'm aware that it compares IPs. I don't entirely trust it, though. -Amark moo! 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 17:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:HistSource

Template:HistSource 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.. This is related to the recent Catholic-link TfD. --Stbalbach 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Calliste Jr.

I am the original author and now the information is not available to the public domain. Bassmint Music Inc. has decided to retain the information for it's own purposes. So I am removing the copyrighted material.

Did you contribute to the article? From what I can see there isn't very much if any additional material added to this article. No one has added anything but me. There may be some grammatical changes to the article but no content other than what I have added.

Sorry, but contributing text to Wikipedia automatically licenses it under the GFDL, unless it was originally a copyright violation. Also, there is a bit of additional materal, and besides, I think it should be kept. He seems fairly notable. -Amark moo! 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for the compliment. I AM GERALD CALLISTE JR. Care to call me on our Bassmint Music Inc. business line? I originally own the copyright to begin with that why it wouldn't violate copyright when I originally posted it.

Now if we can all stop playing games and if you guys wouldn't care to fix the darn thing the way it should be fixed using APA Citation I do not mind letting it remain.

You ignored me. When you contribute to Wikipedia, anything you write is licensed under the GFDL, assuming that you had copyright in the first place. You can't revoke that GFDL licensing, nor can you claim copyright on the information, since information is not copyrightable. -Amark moo! 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it's not copyrightable? Most of that information was originally posted on Bassmintmusic.com which the beta version 2.0 is under construction. SO I decided to grab the old HTML file of the biography and update with a few bits of new information. We have since posted the biography on our company's label site Bassmint Music Inc. http://www.bmmi.biz/execprofile/jerry_calliste_jr.html

Sorry, you should have made that clearer. I'll get around to rewriting it. -Amark moo! 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point I want it removed. You can visit http://www.linkedin.com/in/jcallistejr and take a look at the fileds that are visible oce you have done that let me know. I will then log into my Jerry Calliste Jr. account on Linked In and add additional viewable fields so you can see more of the information that is part of my profile.

I had to edit out a lot of the initial information (e.g. the 2.5 MM units sold and the $5 MM in sales) I posted to this article because although I know it's true based on the Wiki rules it's not verifiable so it had to be removed from the Wiki article - my biography.

If there's truly not enough verifiable information, I won't be able to write the article, so don't worry. -Amark moo! 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not worried that's why I am requesting that it be removed. I am not giving you my permission nor is my company Bassmint Music Inc. giving permission for it to be posted.--mediapr 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that now. If it violates your copyright, it should be deleted. However, if it doesn't, sorry, but we don't need the subject's permission to write an article, as long as it's well sourced. -Amark moo! 01:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at the moment it isn't and what is posted does violate my copyright. Until you write a well sourced article it needs to be removed. --mediapr 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that. I fully agree, now that I understand all the information you've given. -Amark moo! 01:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If people took the time to initially communicate from a positive perspective forward we wouldn't have to go through this. But some editors on Wiki take these articles so seriously as if the world were coming to an end if an unsourced or unverifiable articled remained on the Wiki server for more than a week.

I agree the Jerry Calliste Jr. article needed to be cleaned up. I also agree with MrDarcy that the Hashim Music article should probably be redirected to the Jerry Calliste Jr. profile. But to hastily (not you but MrDarcy) to redirect one article the Hashim Music article which in the process deletes the information - he Mr. Darcy has yet to repost the Hashim Music original article - That's just wrong. I suggested let's clean both up. If the rules say I can;t post both so then let's clean the articles up and merge verifiable information into the one Jerry Calliste Jr.. This way it's properly sourced and conforms to the Wiki rules.

I'm confused. Why are you continuing to argue with me? I agreed with you already. -Amark moo! 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing I was in the process of finishing my point. I am done.--mediapr 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great answer on the help desk (about WP:POINT)

I'm going to link to it on my user page. Xiner (talk, email) 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

The Game is a social phenomenon that really exists. Myself along with thousands of other people play the game everyday of our lives. That Wikipedia entry was pretty much the only resource on the net for it. Must there really be other sites to validate a subjects existence before Wikipedia will acknowledge it!?!

Check this Google for "i just lost the game"

--djonesx 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it restates information that already exists somewhere. Wikipedia isn't here to publish original research. -Amark moo! 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thats fair enough. I will keep my eye out for more worthy info on The Game! --djonesx 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: image help

!! Hooray !! The last version you asked me to try is working great. Can you save that as final? Pepto gecko 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already there. But go thank User:Mecu, it wasn't me. -Amark moo! 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the cookie, dear! The virtual ones are all I'm allowing myself these days... :) Take care of yourself, and oooh, e-mail me if... you know... stuff happens. *stows dagger safely in cloak* riana_dzasta 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know, but frankly, now I don't want to. -Amark moo! 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't really say I blame you, given several recent events, but if you change your mind, let me know, k? riana_dzasta 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... what? I really don't know what this "stuff" is. -Amark moo! 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, then I sound like a complete fruitcake. Even more than usual... I refer you to an e-mail I sent you some time ago. riana_dzasta 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email assuming that, but didn't have time to get back here. Sorry. Wow, this is going to look like complete nonsense to anyone else... -Amark moo! 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense to me. --djonesx 09:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

First of all, thanks very much for your support.

I thought your note was very interesting, because it's the first time anyone has ever said they don't like my first philosophy. It's just meant to say that you don't need to argue to have a good time on Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong - as the philosophy says, I think those pages are important (I work on them all the time) - but they all consist largely of debating with other people rather than actually making an encyclopedia. I'd really like to get more detail about what you disagree with; it may help me clarify the wording of the philosophy or see a different perspective on the situation. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who's seen my contributions knows, I don't really do much encyclopedia contributing. (And as anyone who's seen my prose knows, that's not entirely a bad thing). -Amark moo! 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see, I knew there had to be a misunderstanding there. I don't mean that everyone needs to write articles. Far from it. I just mean that each of those other things can make you bitter if it's all you do. For instance, a quick glance at your contribs shows very well-rounded participation; you do XFD, RFA, template work, DRV, and lots of other policy discussion. My first rule is referring to the people who only do, for instance, AFD. No article work, no other discussions, not even other deletion pages. Just that. So they sit there all day and eventually the well thought-out input devolves into kneejerk "delete per nom" votes and biting comments. That doesn't apply to you, because you do take each one in relatively small doses, interspersed with lots of other things. Most people do. Kafziel ^Talk 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your message

I'm not sure if I'm doing this the right way. I'm not familiar with leaving messages on wikipedia but you sent me a message and said this: "Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the RuneScape page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Amark moo! 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)" I don't know what you mean by me vandalizing RuneScape's page. A user by the name of "Jimilly Billy Bob" added this to the site: "there is no point however as the graphics are lamo!!!!!!roflmao brb g2g noobs!! ("Revision as of 15:54, February 3, 2007) and all I did was to revert that change to the prior one (Revision as of 12:36, February 3, 2007) to remove the vandalism. So I did not attempt to vandalize the page, I did the opposite, I REMOVED the vandalism. I don't vandalize pages. Feel free to look at all my contributions to see that I work toward eliminating vandalism from WikiPedia. Thank You. LockedUpInside ^Talk

I am very, very, sorry about that. I'll go remove the warning now. -Amark moo! 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Sorry I put my comment request under the wrong heading. I've never gone anywhere near this process before. Thanks for correcting it. Shaundakulbara 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA- not wanting to be pushy, but

In response to this edit, fair enough but when are we going to see your RfA? I mean you're definitely qualified- your contributions in XfDs and DRV speak for themselves. You've experience in vandal fighting. OK, you'll get some opposes for not writing much in the mainspace but I pretty sure you'd pass. So what are you waiting for- Wikipedia needs more admins! I see from your talkpage history there are plenty of people who've been willing to nominate you. Anyway, just curious as to why you haven't gone for it... WJBscribe 06:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov's hasty endorsement of User:Zora's divisive and personal attack-laden summary in a since-deleted out-of-process RfC suggests that he is not yet ready for this responsibility. The proper administrative response would have been to delete the RfC as uncertified, or to comment in a manner which demonstrates a thoughtful examination of the relevant evidence, avoids demonization of good-faith editors and points the way to common ground. This unfortunate episode suggests to me that Amarkov is willing to arrive at extreme and very personalized judgements without bothering to discuss or weigh the facts, and is overly eager to score political points without considering the possible negative impacts upon innocent people.Proabivouac 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me dig out the summary to quote it...

Many Islam-related articles are a mess due to aggressive POV-warring by both sides. The Muslim editors do try to present a soft-focus, hagiographic view of Muhammad and early Islamic history; the anti-Muslim editors are just as determined to depict Muhammad as a monster and seem to take delight in taunting and harassing the Muslim editors. Proabivouac is one of the more aggressive, sarcastic, rules-lawyering, and uncivil of the anti-Muslims. So far as I can tell, he doesn't do research, he doesn't write articles -- he just polices articles for anything he thinks is too reverent or too kind to Muslims, or adds material, like pictures of Muhammad, calculated to offend. However, he's canny about this; he avoids rules violations. It's hard to police an attitude. I don't think Svest's complaint stands on the grounds that he gave (unless it's sockpuppetry) but I understand the feelings that gave rise to the RFC and to some extent share them.

That is not really all that personal attack laden, but I stand by it. If you're agressive, sarcastic, and uncivil, then I'm not going to pretend that you aren't under the guise of "I'm being personally attacked!" And the evidence I saw suggests that you are. If telling an uncivil editor that they're uncivil makes me unfit for adminship, so be it, but Wikipedia is not going to thrive if WP:NPA prohibits telling editors that they are doing bad things. -Amark moo! 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You believe that I "add material calculated to offend?" That I "take delight in taunting and harassing the Muslim editors?" Those are pretty serious allegations of bad faith, and utterly false. It should go without saying that the approach you chose to take doesn't contribute to solving problems, and really only helps make Wikipedia an unfriendly and depressing place.

I should also point out to you that the page in question was deleted on 29 January.[1]. It's rather inappropriate for you to repost any material from it, particularly when it is of an inflammatory and personalized nature.Proabivouac 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe those quotes, and just saying that they're false isn't going to convince me otherwise. I've seen edits of yours. And no, it is not inappropriate to post the material that you reference; how will this make sense to anyone else otherwise? -Amark moo! 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Amarkov,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi help needed

Hi pleased to meet you. I am having attacks on me by Sikh-history who calls other people fanatics when other Wikipedians warn him not to delete large section from articles--Sikh 1 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only give you the same advice that I gave him; WP:ANI is the first step. I'm not going to try to meditate it by myself. -Amark moo! 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is purely slanderous. I am not vandalising but rebalancing articles where clear ponts of view are given. Sikh 1 keeps adding meat eating is forbidden in Sikhism. Not true. I have added links to show that meat eating is not forbidden in Sikhism. Thanks --Sikh-history 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear enough. I do not wish to be involved. Please take this somewhere in dispute resolution. -Amark moo! 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This contradicts nearly every rule on adminship I've seen" - Amark

What are the rules on adminship? Or are the rules listed somewhere? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a list of everything. The examples I used are scattered around WP:BP, WP:PP, and WP:ADMIN. -Amark moo! 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: In reply to "huh"...

The article was just undeleted, and I neglected to remove the tag. *whacks self*-Amark moo! 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries, I guessed that was probably what happened. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

If you act too much like an admin, you are going to get a nomination, ready or not... In this case, I'm referring to the DRV closing. And isn't it February now? GRBerry 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Nom

And here it is…

I had the page watchlisted, but I guess I really shouldn't do "beat the candidate support", so I have to wait until you accept. No hurry now (push, shove), take your time (go for it!), think as much as you need to. GRBerry 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You could enter a co-nom with your own words —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I had the (nonexistent) page watchlisted and was pleasantly surprised to see it turn up. —Dgies^t c 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• is scared* -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I knew you from WP:REQT and saw you had {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} on your userpage so I watchlisted for it. —Dgies^t c 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank You, Amarkov/Archive 8 for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians born in 1992

I figured I'd talk to you about this here before bringing it to DRV. Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 was recently speedy deleted once again. I am of the opinion that the dividing line between deleting and keeping these categories is whether everyone born in that year is at least 13 years of age. Therefore, I regularly empty out all categories beyond Category:Wikipedians born in 1993. Though, I realize that there are many people who are of the opinion that we should ignore all rules and delete every category for anyone under 18 years old. What is your opinion on this? --- RockMFR 02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring rules in this case is a baad idea. Category:Child Wikipedians was deleted and endorsed at DRV, so I don't have an issue there, but I would agree with 13 as a cutoff point, since past that is really not considered a "child" by very many people. -Amarkov moo! 02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question on {{W2c}}

Try now--by looking at the proper form Cumulative mistakes, starting with mine. Should have kept the same form as the commons version, and since this version works fine HERE, never really visit it. The SITENAME test is crucial on the commons though. Glad you asked the question... I didn't realize I was defending the versions on the other sisters, but not the one here. Hard to keep straight sometimes! Life would be soooo much simpler if all the sister's had a prefix that worked on their own sites!!! Is really bad the commons doesn't! Best regards // FrankB 06:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)