User talk:Amarkov/Archive 2

[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.

Pokemon Diamond/Pearl

Keep up the good work. :) Sketch-The-Fox 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Amarkov ^babble 01:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we feel your pain. Tennis Dynamite 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Please do not remove the AfD on the Pacifilog Jam episode, the nominator didn't actually know those articles existed, so he going to check them out. I'm just helping him. those articles are under alot of vandalism recently. Please keep the AfD on the article. Pokeant (02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No. It does not matter if he is going to check them out. The AfD does not include them, so it does not get an AfD notice. They are not meant to be used as placeholders in case of a possible AfD. -Amarkov ^babble 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scammer in RuneScape

Nice job reverting that guy. I've started a topic at Talk:RuneScape about what we should do about it. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -Amarkov ^babble 04:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great job on reverting that very inappropriate vandal. You deserve a star! Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 19:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*pokes star* Shiny. -Amarkov ^babble 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You like string theory?

You are also an atheist, right?

Well, if you like strings, go to Luboš Motl's blog. Luboš Motl called himself a "Christian atheist" (see [[this page]http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1ZDPQA6FLY8XM])

My God, that is the most blatantly false thing I have ever SEEN. These people could save themselves a lot of trouble and just say "DIE EVIL MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANITY PWNS J00!". -Amarkov ^babble 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm Catholic. -Amarkov ^babble 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is more evidence for Misty being atheist, or Misty having a crush on Ash? Well, maybe the writers want to portray Misty as an atheist, but they never say it directly. I think the same is true regarding Pokéshipping.4.232.171.33 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think if you don't have reliable sources to cite. -Amarkov ^babble 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, watch the entire anime. She doesn't practice religion at all! The anime is the source. 4.232.171.33 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. She obviously is open to cannibalism, since she never protests against cannibalism. -Amarkov ^babble 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! You win... I realized that this issue is waste of time. Fine, just because no one in the anime practices religion does not make it an atheistic cartoon. I just got carried away with my atheism and my obessession with Pokémon. Just leave stuff on the talk page to see what stupidity this leads to ok :

4.231.167.105 01:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Talk EP

Hey, I was wondering why you think the Girl Talk EP Bone Hard Zaggin' isn't notable and deserves deletion.--PlanetSurfer 16:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of the google hits come from Bone Hard Zaggin', and when I try to eliminate results for that song, I get only 390 hits, some of which still seem to be for it. -Amarkov ^babble 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a song, it's the title of the EP. I understand that most people searching for "Bone Hard Zaggin'" on Google are looking for the Big Mello album, but there are people (like me) who are searching for info on this Girl Talk EP as well. I'm having trouble understanding though why it needs to be removed from Wikipedia. Why can't fans of Girl Talk's music be able to look up information about this EP on Wikipedia? And what do you mean by saying you're trying to "eliminate results" on google?--PlanetSurfer 16:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to filter out results irrelevant to your EP, and I got very few. -Amarkov ^babble 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram T. Smith

Marking and deleting my article on Hiram T. Smith so soon after creation without giving me a reasonable change to justify its staying as an article isn't only unfair, doesn't it go against the official policy of speedy delete criteria? Namely the marking of new articles and the non notables non criteria section? Kraagenskul 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the article. If it got deleted, that means an admin saw it and agreed with me. Besides, there is no rule against marking of new articles. -Amarkov ^babble 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize then; I thought you deleted it. I also realize I should've originally started the article as a stub and in my user's box. It was my first real item that I tried to write. Kraagenskul 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

db-rediruser

Very useful tag. A lot of times you see a vanity article (especially when, as in this case, the title exactly matches the username) that would be appropriate as a user page, and may well have been meant as one. So, you just Move it to the user page, tag the old one as db-rediruser, and leave the user a welcome with the {subst:userfied|articlename} to let them know it's been moved. Fan-1967 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to read the speedy deletion criteria more carefully, if I missed this one. -Amarkov ^babble 21:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the Collaboration Project

I hear you are the person to thank for the quality of Pokemon reference on wikipedia. I love the sound of the PCP, getting every section up to standard. Can anyone join? Anyway, hats off sir!!! Stuedgar 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Stuedgar[reply]

Yes, anyone can join. But who told you to ask me? I'm one of the newer members. -Amarkov ^babble 02:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my friend josh had seen your talk page. Where do i help out? Stuedgar 11:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) stuedgar[reply]

Here. -Amarkov ^babble 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy candidate

Regarding [1] I removed the tag, not the author in question. JoshuaZ 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Didn't matter, anyway. Sorry if you care, though.-Amarkov ^babble 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was more a minor FYI, also to make it clear for the record in case it became relevant with new user at all. JoshuaZ 04:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fried Chicken

RE: CROWN FRIED CHICKEN

Hi, I would like to know if Kentucy Fried Chicken has its own article...why can't Crown Fried Chicken create an article of its own? Crown is a fast-food restaurant chain all across the east-coast of the United States. Also to mention, there is an article about Crown's sister chain Kennedy Fried Chicken. NisarKand 09:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For something to have its own article, it must be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. Since you cited none, it is assumed that they do not exist. If they do, by all means, add them in. -Amarkov ^babble 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to ask you politely..

To stop it.--Nikki666a666 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have to be more specific. Although if this involves speedy tagging an article, the answer is probably no. -Amarkov ^babble 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your thoughts on the Brad Hines entry:

If you Google various combintations of Brad Hines and Bradford Hines (Having two names automatically dilutes the presence in two) yields countless entries on Hines like if you google "Hines Yum Domains" or "Hines Domains"

Check it out.--Utzchips 04:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised it doesn't produce pornography, as well. Most nn people's names seem to do that. -Amarkov ^babble 04:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Speech Code Theory

You redirected my Speech Code Theory page before (literally the minute before) I got the chance to go back and edit out what made it the same as Speech Code. I was going to make them two different things after considering what should go where...is there any way to undo the "redirect"???

Yes. Follow this link. At the top, you will see "Redirected from Speech Code Theory". Click on the link there, and you will see the page. Then just edit it. And next time, don't create pages until you have content for them. -Amarkov ^babble 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CR-1

Actually, that editor was correct about the speed, albeit wording it in a rather unhelpful way. See Cisco's site and you'll find that "up to 92Tbps" is accurate. The article itself should be merged in any case, though, so I've changed the CSD tag for a mergeto one. Loganberry (Talk) 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article was written, it seemed like that was being given as the network speed, which is absurd. Oh well. -Amarkov ^babble 14:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that interpretation, but it's not a point I'm going to press since the article will presumably end up being merged anyway. Loganberry (Talk) 16:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Lord of the Rings music renaming/changing

There's already Category: Middle-earth music containing all other Tolkien-related music, and Category:The Lord of the Rings music is a subcategory of it. Category:The Lord of the Rings music also happens to be a subcategory of Category:Film soundtracks and Category:Film scores. I agree, Category:The Lord of the Rings music should contain film soundtracks from the other films. But then it should be renamed Category:The Lord of the Rings film music (any other wording? Category:Music of The Lord of the Rings films?) for adaptation-neutrality and to keep it within its parent categories. What do you say? (check the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 4 page, I changed my proposal) Uthanc 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I supported your new proposal. Good job. -Amarkov ^babble 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Uthanc 06:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectw

Amongst other things, McAfee Site Advisor gives projectw.org a big red X for popups and links to virii and spyware sites. Article probably should be deleted on that basis alone, but I don't know the Wikipedia policy on links to bad sites. Tubezone 04:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy on linking to bad sites, unless such links are unnecessary to an article. If the thing is indeed notable, that's not a reason to delete. -Amarkov ^babble 05:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Blogging

I was just wondering why the article for the Vox Blogging system was tagged by you for removal... Mozunk 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It did not assert notability. -Amarkov ^babble 02:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HyPower Fuel

Yup. You were right, they're a neat company with neat ideas, but they don't meet the definition of notable.

Thanks for the heads up. Vraibois 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for being civil about it. I keep expecting someone to come here saying "OMG YOU BITCH Y U SAY DELETE MY ARTICLE?!?!?!?!?!?" -Amarkov ^babble 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wet broadcasting

I found this page while doing speedy-deletions. A google search turned up the fact that "wet broadcasting" is used to refer to Hydroseeding, so I redirected to that instead of deleting the page outright. The web-meaning appears to have no or little use beyond the website mentioned in the page, so there is no competition for this redirect. Of course, if it's an uncommon enough alternate term for hydroseeding then a redirect may be unnecessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't speedy material, which I wasn't sure it was, then {{about|the computer term|the farming term|hydroseeding}} was more appropriate. A redirect is probably good if it got deleted.

Re: Your comment on the Scott M Rodell AFD

Yes, I am completely familiar with the speedy keep criteria. The nominator was an account being used only for vandal-like and other bad-faith edits, and has since been blocked, and the nomination appeared to be in bad faith, in addition to being an obvious keep. Please do not accuse me of not reading the criteria. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but you didn't mention that. Thus, I assumed it wasn't your argument. -Amarkov ^babble 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh- my apologies, then. I should have been more clear, but instead relied on the other editors who commented before me for the context of my vote. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith AfD

Hi, you reverted my change that took out The Lord of the Rings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 9? It was a bad faith AfD and was showing up as a redlined article, as the corresponding project page wasn't created. Was there a better way to remove it from the log, as a reason for your revert? --Steve 01:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize it was deleted. It should be kept if it exists, but it doesn't. -Amarkov ^babble 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speech Code Theory

I understand why you keep redirecting the Speech Code Theory page, and I could have approached it in a better way, but I keep trying to extract the THEORY part from the Speech Code entry and make a separate entry. When I go back to delete the theory part from the original entry so that they are two separate, stand-alone entries, you have already redirected, making it difficult for me to do what I am trying to do. I have now deleted the theory content from the "Speech Code" entry and made the "Speech Code Theory" entry again. They are not the same and I did not try to make an entry without having content first. I am just having a hard time correcting the mistakes when you redirect the page.

Could you please explain why you think the theory needs its own article? -Amarkov ^babble 14:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Speech Code refers to actual, physical written codes established by schools and businesses. It means that you cannot say certain words and phrases that could be taken as being racist, sexist, etc.

Speech Code Theory refers to the idea that people in certain groups have unspoken "rules" for speech. This is intuitive as opposed to official rules imposed by institutions. An example is how teenagers talk to one another when they are alone vs. how they speak around their parents. Nobody is giving them rules on how to talk, it just happens. Speech Codes are WITHIN the theory, but don't make up the whole of it. Make sense?

Ohhh, sorry. That wasn't clear, so I thought you were just trying to make a seperate article for the section. -Amarkov ^babble 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, mostly my fault. It would have made sense if you saw the finished product first, but I was having trouble getting to that point :-)

My failed RfA

Thank you so much (sarcasm) for your deeply unpleasant comments on my RfA. After months of working hard, following WP:NPOV to the letter, improving various articles and winning the respect of admins, not to mention working with the AMA, I feel that all my hard work has been thrown back in my face. I think it is now likely that I will stop editing Wikipedia altogether - the whole site is clearly run by a little clique of admins who attach more importance to edit counts than personality. I really don't care if you block me, call this a personal attack, or anything else - I think I've had enough of following the rules. Once again, thank you so much for destroying my confidence, ruining the one real diversion that existed in my life, and generally making me feel bad. Walton monarchist89 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you simply can not function as an administrator with the level of experience you have. I don't claim that I could be a good admin yet, I don't even think I might. But admins need lots of experience with more than just article writing, which you do not have. It's nothing against you. Many very good editors would not get my support for adminship, because they don't show enough experience in things except for article writing. The fact that you think my comments were unpleasant indicates you definitely need more experience, by the way. In a full length RfA, you will probably get people calling you incivil and stupid, and asking them to explain may well garner more oppose votes for being "insecure". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Walton has posted this same message on everyone who voted oppose on his RFA. KazakhPol 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of that. This had to happen on my second RfA vote ever... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the above comment. I was in a bad mood at the time. In reality, I do understand why you voted against my RfA. It's true that I don't have a huge amount of experience and I may decide to reapply in the future. Please accept my apology. Walton monarchist89 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand the bad mood. But be aware that you should probably wait at least half a year before reapplying. 3 months is the norm, but people may oppose you for the comments, bad mood or not, if they are too recent. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request for thoughts at PCP

hi Amarkov, i was wondering if you could contribute to this discussion. I value your comments, and would really appreciate some more feedback on this controversial proposition. -Zappernapper 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I have no opinion either way. I just care what emerges so I can edit things to use it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok.... oh well :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Thanks Amarkov, sorry for the confusion. Moongateclimber 04:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick thank you for directing me to the administrators noticeboard re the Criterion Collection infoboxes. I appreciate the help. MarnetteD | Talk 14:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Now to get rid of the stupid messagebox that won't go away. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

restoration

Here ya go : User:Amarkov/Runescape economy. Friday (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I get to slog through it. Yay... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 = .9 Repeating

Replying to your comment here since it's "closed" (by an anon? what the ....?): I wasn't the one who removed the prod tag, the creator of the page did. Erik Swanson 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. Sorry if I implied otherwise. And that anon seems to be very WP:BOLD. I created an AfD page on their request. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Please stop reverting me. Take this to WP:ANI. Homey knows what's right and you don't. --OrbitalWise 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm doing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and guess what I found on AN/I? A motion to community ban SPUI. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GROW UP YOU IGNORANT SOD. THE CONSENSUS IS CLEAR. GEORGE W. BUSH MUST BE PROTECTED AGAINST RE-CREATION. --OrbitalWise 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TAKE THIS TO WP:ANI OR ELSE!!! --OrbitalWise 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've violated Wikipedia:Personal attacks. I recommend taking a break before you get perm banned. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

Didnt know about that. Fixed it now. TYvm. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS All too soon

Help ?

Can you please read comments in the on going article and give your by a keep or delete .. I wish more people participate so that this time we can reach some consensus. I will appreciate that. --- ALM 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it, but no guarantee of a comment. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub templates

Hi, with regards to your !vote here, I've found the CfD discussion wich resulted in deletion in the first place (under an erraneous deletion summary). Just thought I'd let you know, as I can see a potential misunderstanding with the original discussion not linked to, and the bad frst deletion. Thanks, M a rtinp23 11:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world did I not remember that one? Oh well, nothing changed much. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Thanks for reviewing this little story and commenting about "taking a break". Curious, did you get a chance to read this? The line, "further comments along the lines of "take a break before you get blocked" will be taken as threats and dealt with accordingly." seems particularly pertinent. This individual appears to not know when to quit. (→Netscott) 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expected something along those lines. Whenever I have contact with the creator of a page I've tagged for speedy deletion, it seems to turn out badly. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it's human nature still... this person is just disparaging me left and right... accusing me of racism when all I did was remove non-editorial talk he left on Talk:Michael Richards and now I'm a "shameful Muslim"... perhaps that can be chalked up to human nature as well. :-S (→Netscott) 06:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem too bad. Maybe NP patrol desensitizes (this is the wrong spelling, but I can't figure out what's the right one) me to personal attacks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the "pleasure" of being involved with NP patrol so I've not had the opportunity to become desensitized. Still this individual is just disrupting Wikipedia and disparaging me... not a good combo... :-) (→Netscott) 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

File:Turkey Roast.jpg

Happy Turkeyday from Tennis Dynamite!

Enjoy the meal! T ennis Dy N ami T e ^{(sign in)} 17:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I already did. 'FL a RN'(talk) 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to strike out the part where you say "I accept this nomination", not just remove it from the page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an unequivocal withdrawal and you can go ahead and close it out. No need to stand on ceremony in this instance. Newyorkbrad 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I prefer the ceremony. Oh well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but with the RfA off the page, there aren't going to be any more !votes anyway. Newyorkbrad 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I comment

I'm disappointed with your reaction to my request for help at WP:AN/I. I would like you to point out the violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and/or WP:SPAM that you implied I committed with your "Oh wow, you're right" comment. If you didn't mean to imply that, then can I ask you to rephrase your comment? I have been careful to act in good faith throughout this dispute. Demiurge 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You warned him for vote canvassing, which his comment was not. I don't claim anything more, but he hasn't done much more than that, either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your attitude hard to understand. I think this is a very reasonable response to these edits: [2][3][4]. You are also ignoring the personal attacks [5][6] and the vandalizing my talk page with bad-faith warnings. What action would you suggest I take next, since it looks like AN/I isn't interested in enforcing WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT? WP:PAIN requires evidence of npa warnings, which if I leave on his talk page will start off another edit war on my own talk page. Demiurge 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a reasonable response to those edits, informing people who you know to care about the subject is not vote canvassing. Violating WP:POINT is bad, yes, but I'd be annoyed if you warned me for what you did, too. And I was unaware of the personal attacks. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demuirge, there is need need to go around harassing people just because they dont agree with you. Please try to be more balanced in your comments. thank you Vintagekits 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I need to reconsider my understanding of the canvassing guideline, but I was acting in good faith (I'd specifically refrained from contacting individual users I know). Those personal attacks were pointed out (with diffs) in my report, so if you were unaware of them until I drew your attention to them here it looks like you jumped to conclusions without reading it fully. No matter anyway, someone else has looked at the case and dealt with it. Demiurge 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]