User talk:Skomorokh/Դ

Reverting my edit[edit]

Listen, I'm all for listening to your reason why you think that my edits were inappropriate (as you indicated). However, don't merely revert my edits, okay? Tan | 39 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This from the administrator who just rolled my edit back as vandalism? I indicated very clearly in my edit summary why your comment was inappropriate: telling another editor to "go away" is not civil. There was a discussion on topic-banning the editor in question from commenting at RfA and it failed; you ought to respect that and respect your fellow editors. Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formulating a civil response, stand by. Seriously, hear me out. Tan | 39 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Skomorokh 02:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't mean to revert your response as vandalism. I've never subscribed to the "ZOMG YOU USED ROLLBACK INSTEAD OF UNDO", and I really did just mean to - well, change it back. Clearly you weren't vandalizing. Secondly; I know you thought my comment was inappropriate; that's what I said in my first post here. However, just because you find a comment inappropriate doesn't mean you should delete it - I personally find Dougtechs comments extremely inappropriate, and notice that I have yet to remove a single one of his trolling votes. I understand that you might take offense to my comment and I respect that. However, please respect my right to make a comment - a comment that didn't contain any "fuck you"s, "you dick", or any other name-calling; I simply told him to take his actions elsewhere. There are over thirty (yes, thirty) editors that condemn his actions, and possibly a fourth of that number condoning it. Of those condoning it, none agree with his sentiment and simply uphold his right to blanket-vote "too many admins" while simultaneously nominating a controversial editor for adminship. But I digress. I merely ask you to please not just remove my comment with a dismissive edit summary. I am familiar with you, you're a great editor, and whether or not we agree on this issue, I hope you can respect my wishes here. Tan | 39 02:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Re-opened[edit]

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ga Review Philip Larkin[edit]

Hi - I noticed you had listed yourself at GAN mentors, and was wondering if you would be willing to look over a review I have just completed at Talk:Philip_Larkin/GA1 (if you have the time/interest). It is my first good article review, so I would appreciate a more experienced editor's opinion. Thanks --Kateshort forbob 19:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, at a quick glance it looks quite well for a first review; I'll try to give some more feedback once I've read the review and checked the history of the article more thoroughly. Thanks for helping out the Good Articles project! Skomorokh 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at the article, I appreciate it (~~even~~ especially if it's to point out what I got horribly wrong!)--Kateshort forbob 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter 3[edit]

WikiProject Tool is being revived.

The current WikiProject Tool Collaboration of the Month is
Maynard James Keenan discography
Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Ref[edit]

Is this usable? [1] لenna vecia 16:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reputable publisher or anyone with anything to lose should the info turn out to be inaccurate – videosift seems to be a simple videohost without editorial oversight, and I doubt whether this gentlemen meets our criteria for experts (only one "Max Power Point"!). I'd file this under "very probably true, but unusable". Skomorokh 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this posted by this guy? I hate when video verification exists, but it's not on a reliable website where you can be sure of the copyright status. لenna vecia 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same deal, really. It might be different if it were an official artist/label channel or a rip-off of a TV recording or even a posting by a famous friend of the artists. It seems ridiculous to question whether this collaboration happened when you're watching it right in front of you, but I suppose the rules are there for good reason. There's no pressing need to ref absolutely everything in the list right now, and hopefully something usable might show up in a while. Skomorokh 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I want to take it to FLC once I get the lead written, as was the goal when I created it last year, but I suppose I'll keep it there for now and look for sources in the meantime. Thanks, لenna vecia 19:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review[edit]

Hello there. I remembered you from my previous RfA, where you had expressed some concerns and felt that you would be unable to support. I wondered if you could comment on my current editor review, as I feel it would be best to see if those who hadn't thought of me as highly of me five months ago now think I have improved. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be glad to, though I might not be able to contribute immediately. Regards, Skomorokh 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary[edit]

I noticed that you edited a new section I created on the admin notice board by linkifying the section title, with the edit summary "annoying." The snarky edit summary wasn't necessary or helpful. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, I didn't even look who had started the section, it is simply annoying to have to copy and paste an address in order to find out what is going on at that location. The edit summary was intended to inform anyone watching the page why the edit was made, not to take a jab at anyone. My only reason for making the edit was to try to help get more attention to your request, and I am sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way. Sincerely, Skomorokh 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crosssect[edit]

Nice job! --Karbinski (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it must have been tiresome for you to have to write all that out all those times. Ciao, Skomorokh 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle[edit]

That has the greatest name in the history of things with names, I think. That said, shouldn't it be capitalized, as it's the proper name of a propaganda film? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to consult our glorious leader, Kim Il-Jong, before venturing to answer that, you understand. It's not clear whether it is the name of the film, or simply its lulziest exhortation. Skomorokh 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply brilliant! The Onion could not satirize something like that 'cause it is impervious to satire. Too wonderful for words. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

You correctly interpreted my response on a particular RFA. About a matter on which I regularly bite my tongue. Dloh cierekim 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, and for your admirable restraint. I often wonder what keeps established administrators from appending "...you f***ing INGRATES!!" to their comments at RfA. Mahalo, Skomorokh 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award for being swell[edit]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I salute you for doing the best you can :) Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Keep up the good work and keep smiling Mrpotatohead 2 (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should certainly hope I'm not doing the best I can, my sole intention here is to slack off and laze around as much as possible. But you have a point in that I am swell, and I thank you for your kind and morale-boosting note :) Mahalo, Skomorokh 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award for being groovy[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Skomorokh, for his continued efforts to improve wikipedia and help other editors. I am always so amazed when editors I have never met involve themselves in discussions where they will get no real benefit from their work. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured, Ikip. Thank you very much for your kind words and tireless advocacy on behalf of neglected areas of the encyclopaedia. Kind regards, Skomorokh 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you really deserve it, best wishes. I look forward to working with you again. Ikip (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I can only be ruthlessly hounded and harassed so much. Although I have considered a topic ban for weeks, the editor deleting another editors good faith question was the tiping point. Ikip (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. It can't be pleasant to be involved in such ongoing second-guessing. I think if we clarify the scope of the ARS, for example with regard to participation at AfD and notifying editors, and all agree to abide by that, much strife can be avoided in future. Skomorokh 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my idea of topic banning the problem editor is much faster and easier.

There are editors who simply have no desire to further the efforts of ARS, and do everything to derail it. would you like edit diffs, here or via email?Ikip (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there will always be such editors, Ikip. Immediatist editors want the bad articles out, now, so that the quality of the encyclopaedia is upheld. I radically disagree with them, but it's a valid metapedian position, and is likely to prevail amongst a subset of editors for years to come. I'm sure we both could name a half a dozen editors who have sought to thwart the ARS in various ways, and even if we wanted t, we would never get them all topic banned, and even if we did, more would arise within weeks. So I'm not interested in the conduct of individual editors, because this issue is not restricted to individual personalities. We should take a leaf out of WP:ENEMY and make it clear just what it is we are here for – rescuing worthy articles on notable topics, which very few editors could disagree with – and uphold that mission with integrity and transparency. Skomorokh 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and interceding. We will agree to disagree. sure there will always be "immediatist" editors (I like that term), and there are hundreds on wikipedia. But when an editor attempts to actively dismantle the project, then it becomes a problem. Ikip (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree a bit here with Ikip. This really isn't an issue of project creep. It's a civility problem with ... two admins although Fram seems more ammeniable to dialog. AMIB has inserted themself as the ARS sherriff when one was not needed. And I would think one is almost never needed. Coming up with constructive ways to handle percieved issues is helpful. Labelling anyone who posts - like in my case - a link to a TfD as canvassing and threatening to block them? Not so much. AMIB has shot themselves in the foot here with rather poor behaviours over many months. It may be exhausting but they really have earned a topic ban from the project and should disengage altogether. They have simply disrupted efforts to address the very problems they persistently mention. If they and Fram backed off teh rest of the ARS folks have rather consistently kept items in check. We don't have to shame and accuse - we want to win over editors to better behaviours. If Ikip or anyone is overzealous towards an article or issue then it should be addressed civilly and with an effort to channel that energy more constructively. At this point AMIB is the main source of disruption to the project as a whole. Another RfC would sadly degrade into - yet another - ARS is a bunch of ____ which is toxic. As for scope? The last RfC resulted in officially adding templates although it came about because AMIB was deleting a link to a TfD discussion. He's again edit-warring on DrVs which is already in our scope but we don't advertize it per se. We don't tell anyone how to vote or even to vote. I've been drafting a Rescue 101 page for a while but AMIB's disruption has stalled that effort as well. -- Banjeboi 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what your opinion on this was Ben. Thanks for sharing it. A comment you made a couple of weeks ago actually gave me this idea. I don't particularly get along with Fram, but I see no reason for him to be able to stay editing on ARS. That goes for the other editors who tend to side for deletion. I actually support Stifle's name change idea, and I think it is a good one. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the project but continued disruption and harrassment shouldn't have to be tolerated. Ikip (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should be open to good faith criticism, but there is a point at which, as is the current situation, that it has become disruptive by being a distraction from our efforts to rescue articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4[edit]

Thank you for the feedback, If there is anything I can do to alleviate any concerns, please let me know. Have a pleasant evening/day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, best of luck with it. Mahalo, Skomorokh 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Functionaries[edit]

Well, my original intent in using the term was to refer to the core membership of functionaries-en—namely, arbitrators, former arbitrators in good standing, and other editors with CU & OS access. I think the basic principle is generally applicable to almost every class of editor that might be termed a "functionary", however; by definition, any editor who is given a position of trust and prominence is expected to uphold that trust and not disgrace the position by their conduct.

(The practical difference is in the process for removal of status. CU/OS rights and membership on functionaries-en may be revoked by the Committee at will, as may Clerk status; admin [and potentially bureaucrat] tools, on the other hand, have more formal procedures for desysopping in place.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, that's very helpful. Regards, Skomorokh 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

db-move[edit]

{{admin!}} I think I tagged a page as {{db-move}} earlier but can't remember what it was. Can you have a look at my recent deleted contributions and see (should be in the last two or three pages)? Mahalo, Skomorokh 06:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skomorokh, looks like the The Wind That Shakes the Barley. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much WereSpielChequers but I got that one, was there another? It should have been deleted and then had a disambiguated title moved over it, or else still be a redlink. Skomorokh 17:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably Libertas.eu. You placed a db-move tag on that about 16 hours ago. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, that's the one. Many thanks J.delanoy, and sorry for the bother, Skomorokh 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For all your copy edits to the Signpost.--ragesoss (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Mahalo, Skomorokh 22:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Leuchtturm des Chaos[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Leuchtturm des Chaos at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Skomorokh 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1952 in NASCAR[edit]

I disagree with how the article reads now with 2 columns for the race results. I agree that a shorter length to the article is beneficial. But the problem is that the races were listed in chronological order. Now the reader is left to wonder what is the chronological order - is the second race the second entry in the first column, or the first race in the second column. If you want to shorten the length by adding 2 columns, then please add a label to each race stating number of the race. Then there will be no confusion for the reader. Royal broil 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can joyfully report not caring in the slightest; do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Mahalo, Skomorokh 05:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - hopefully that's acceptable to everyone. ;) — Ched : ? 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied. I thank both of your for improving the article. Royal broil 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your continued good work on Article Rescue Squadron, including the new edit here.[2] Ikip (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the discord has put me off rescue work recently, but hopefully enforceable consensus on the direction of the ARS will be forthcoming before long. Mahalo, Skomorokh 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mechanical[edit]

[3] I did it just to force TOC and to make editing easier? rootology (C)(T) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual MFDs begin at a level three heading; that was a level two heading, which screwed up the main WP:MFD page as well as the table of contents. For ease of editing, you could try adding a level four section break after the nom. To force toc, you can use the magic word __TOC__. Mahalo, Skomorokh 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I caught that right after I restored it and a couple of us started tripping over each other fixing it. :) Thanks!! rootology (C)(T) 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I blame AMiB for writing such a longwinded intro :) Skomorokh 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blame me also! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am New[edit]

I am newly logged in, but I want you to know right away that I have been responsible for several "unlogged in user" edits to several pages. I am uncertain as to protocol, even after reading the materials. However, I wish to re-open discussion of inclusion of 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.' (My server apparently cannot send private messages.)

Pelagius1 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pelagius, and welcome. This (posting on a "user talkpage") Wikipedia's equivalent of private messages, so you're in the right place. Don't worry about having made logged-out edits in the past; as long as you are up front about which IP addresses you have been using it is not a problem.

I see you have been posting the same message about James Valliant on multiple pages. This is a common occurrence, as many issues are relevant to more than one article. For this reason, editors interested in Objectivism have a centralised discussion forum at Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk. This is where we recently discussed the Valliant issue and unanimously agreed to remove references to his work.

I have re-opened a discussion at the forum here so that you may make your case, and hope to continue discussing the issue with you there. Regards, Skomorokh 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long-time Wikipedia lurker, never having edited any article, but have been following the James Valliant discussion closely. I am wondering what difference it would make if the topic-banned entity 72.199.110.160 was back as a logged-in user. As it stands, there is clear evidence that 72.199.110.160 is actually the author of the work in question. Is it fair to ask Pelagius what IP address she or he had been posting from in the past? If so, what if it turns out that Pelagius is actually 72.199.110.160, and is the author of the items at issue? Does that matter? Are we able to note the names and discuss the conflict of interest without 'outing' the person here? Wsscherk (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews OR[edit]

I left some more notes on the tip line if you feel like commenting. Mike H. Fierce! 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equality tag[edit]

Sorry. :) rootology/equality 03:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries...when you said you " feeling exceptionally bold" I had wondered if that extended to decreeing your words as law :) Thank you for raising the issue; though I don't agree with your position it's definitely worth discussing. Mahalo, Skomorokh 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I hate invoking IAR like that (I think I only have once that I can recall). It leads to too much ill-will when people actually have to do that and then make a point of letting you know they did. As for your second point:

Wikipedia talk:Equality#If you disagree with my proposal... ;) rootology/equality 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarianism by quality[edit]

I'm not ignoring your question. The renames were made, but you may need to adjust the template. If you can figure out what is wrong, you can fix it. It may be a bit before I have some quiet time to try and figure out what is wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I'm sorry I'm somewhat dense when it comes to categories – which template needs adjusting? Don't worry about if you haven't the time, I'm sure I can find someone at the helpdesk or admin boards. Cheers, Skomorokh 05:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

Hi Skomorokh. This article came under my radar and I know you tend to edit Anarchism articles. Would you mind taking a look at it? Syn 23:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Synergy. The article crossed my radar as well. The contributor is not entirely au fait with the norms of English Wikipedia nor English itself, but as far as notability is concerned, it's a valid topic. Although some of the sources cited look dodgy, my Castillian is not strong enough to qualify me to judge them. As far as the subject matter goes, I'm not familiar with the history of nudism to be able to tell at a glance what's missing or given undue weight. What specifically concerns you about the article? If I can't help I'll drop a line at WT:ATF and see if my colleagues can shed some light. Regards, Skomorokh 23:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the grammatical tense tag really. I figured you might have been interested, but I also didn't take into account that your project had this feature. It was just a courtesy note to you just in case. :) Syn 23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I might wait until Eduen is done with it and then give it a copyedit. And not to fear, any new article mentioning anarchism is automatically tagged and monitored in proper Orwellian fashion :) Appreciate the courtesy, Skomorokh 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlo 01[edit]

Could you keep an eye on him, please? He's been deleting large swaths of sourced text and claiming they are 'essays'. I have politely asked him to look the word up in the dictionary. He also seems to have an inability to assume good faith, and has claimed that the article Individualist anarchism in Europe has an anti-american bias, which is a complete non-sequitur. He is very hostile and aggressive and it would be useful to have some backup. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leuchtturm des Chaos[edit]

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leuchtturm des Chaos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lilian Wolfe[edit]

On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lilian Wolfe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber article[edit]

Good job reorganizing the article. I got confused when looking through multiple edits at one time, and should have been more cautious. Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the diffs make it look a lot more dramatic than it is. Thanks for the kind words, Skomorokh 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]