User talk:Skomorokh/α

Steroid usage amongst Dominican Athletes

This article was deleted by you. Can you please move it to my page here so i can utilize the sources and history. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:CashRules/steroid CashRules (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have restored it to User:CashRules/steroid along with the associated talkpage which contains sources that may be of use. Note that another user draft exists at User:ChuloConWepa/fixarticle. Regards, Skomorokh 06:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping page titles

When you moved Polarization (disambiguation) to Polarization over the existing redirect, you may perhaps not have been aware of this guideline, which points out that when changing the target of existing links, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." In future, before approving a move request that would usurp an existing title, it would be helpful if you would check that existing links have been fixed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the issue, though not the help page. In closing the move request I asked the participants to update the links; is this the responsibility of the closing administrator? It would be odd for the links to have been "fixed" so to speak before the outcome of the discussion was known. Regards, Skomorokh 14:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors in favor of moving the page may feel some obligation or interest to fix the incoming links. If not, it is a job for Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links could have been fixed before the page was moved. Simply stating, when closing the move, that the links should be fixed is unlikely to have any effect. Saying it is a job for another project is fine, but the volunteers who work in that project may not appreciate having other people intentionally dumping work onto their (already overflowing) plate. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpations happen as a result of page moves all the time, and in many cases by administrators through requested moves, so either closers or supporters of moves are expected to fix the links or they are left for volunteers. I'm not trying to state how things should be, only that I am unaware of any convention as to which group is supposed to attend to them. If a guideline on this exists I'll follow it; if you want to propose one I'll discuss it, but beyond that I'm not sure how I can help. Skomorokh 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handy w/ a flamethrower

This was awesome, by the way. Thank you. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, I was glad to help, though I fear it will be back in the same state next month. Ciao, Skomorokh 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texans For Kay

Having just deleted this as spam, I see in the history that three days ago you redirected it instead; however that redirect was promptly undone by the article author, so I think deletion is probably the best option. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I felt it was rescuable at the time but under the circumstances I'm afraid you're probably right. Skomorokh 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA for Mystery Train (film)

Congrats on your GA article Mystery Train (film)! Nice one. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I was looking over your voluminous list of nominations the other day and got excited about reviewing the one on Rommel's wooden poles, but it seems some has beat me to it. Skomorokh 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh... Yeah, somebody got that one, and is working me hard to make it better; all for the good of the article. Looking at your new GA made me want to rent the movie and see it again. I am surprised it didn't turn a profit in the first year... Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That figure is just the domestic gross; an artist is never appreciated in his own land. It made bucketloads in Japan and Europe as I recall, which is in a way appropriate considering the plot. Skomorokh 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

!

Keegan (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

Skomorokh 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Culture Kids

Dear Skomorokh, What happened there? I moved both article and talk which went without problem. Why was that talk page not in correct place - was that the result of an earlier bad move? Ronhjones, 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ron, I'm something of a page-delete-move newcomer myself so I am not certain, but it may have something to do with making sure the talkpage of the article you are moving is deleted before you try to move the article itself. Otherwise you get a "Congratulations, you have successfully moved Original page to Target page. Talk:Target page already exists and cannot be overwritten" sort of message, and the talk history gets left behind. Skomorokh 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, I checked that first (I too have done the move to an existent talk page) - but this went well - Moving Third Culture Kids to Third culture kid.

19:47, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Talk:Third culture kid ‎ (moved Talk:Third Culture Kids to Talk:Third culture kid)

19:47, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Third culture kid ‎ (moved Talk:Third Culture Kids to Talk:Third culture kid)

19:47, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Third culture kid ‎ (moved Third Culture Kids to Third culture kid) (top) [rollback]

19:47, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Third Culture Kids ‎ (moved Third Culture Kids to Third culture kid) (top)

As far as I can see you found the talk page at "Talk:Third culture kids", I think we must assume that someone else had done an earlier move from "Third culture kids" to "Third Culture Kids" and failed with the talk. Too many pages with very similar names! Thanks for fixing anyway Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too confusing! Glad everything seems to be in the right place now anyway. Best of luck with the future moving in any event, Skomorokh 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2009: note about the meaning of neutral

Hi Skomorokh. We seem to be overlapping on this. First let me say many thanks for your "edit now or hold your peace" edit summary: it was very helpful. What I did was copy, unchanged, the text that Happy-melon posted on the talk page on 19 Dec 09 (see 12:19 here), though I was not entirely comfortable with the implication of it. Your change "Each of the 996 votes cast included a support, oppose or neutral vote on each individual candidate." implies that "neutral" was a deliberate vote. I suggest a middle ground: half of Happy-melon's statement plus your own 12 November 2009 "effective difference" opinion (diff). Hope this is OK with you, and best wishes for 2010. - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry Pointillist, I misread your initial edit summary. My problem with the initial wording was that it made it seem as if "neutral" was just something calculated from what was left after the sum of supports and opposes (as one might have derived it in previous years), when on the ballot this year it was an explicit choice alongside "support" and "oppose". In any case it's not a big deal, and I wish you the best for the year ahead too. Namaste, Skomorokh 00:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini

The discussion is here regarding Rossini, if you could have a look at these sources and comment that would be great, the citations look weak to me and are supporting very controversial content, we are not here to excite people or publicize these lesser reported controversies and as I am from the UK it is not easy for me to evaluate the situation, personally it all looks titillating and primary and BLP issues not widely reported to me, better out than in imo. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

No problem; thanks for posing them, the second one really made me think (off-wiki) about the innate duties and responsibilities of editors. Hmn. Anyway, I'll leave you be; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from user page

Hi there Skomorokh. The following message was left on your user page by User:Pcummin: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User%3ASkomorokh&action=historysubmit&diff=335109832&oldid=329404822 --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks KFP; I hadn't it watchlisted oddly enough. I'll contact the editor. Mahalo, Skomorokh 20:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand War of Independence page move

This page move has screwed up the AfD link. I am not certain, though, what to do about it. Would you mind taking a look? It seems inappropriate to move the article during the discussion without even a comment. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article while at AfD is not prohibited and is somewhat common (though a rationale would be polite), and the templates are in fact equipped to deal with such situations. However, in their zeal to rename the article, our friend went out of their way to mess with the template parameters, thus breaking the link. For now I've simply fixed the template, although the new title does not sit well with me either. Skomorokh 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at the AfD in regard to this, and we will see how he responds. Thanks for fixing the links so at least they go to the right page. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Hopefully any salvagable content about these international battles of great significance can be stuck back in the main article where it belongs and we can put the forks back in the cutlery drawer. Skomorokh 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jarmusch

Hi, I was wondering what the rationale is for having a section titled, "Escape to New York" in the Jim Jarmusch article, when it seems that the word "escape" over-dramatacizes what is basically his moving to New York. While it may be a self-described artistic escape, as an encyclopedia it would be better to keep NPOV, even if the escape is called so in the source. That type of info belongs in body of the section, not in the title. Angryapathy (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I missed this the first time around; the article talkpage would seem to be the best place for discussion. Skomorokh 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saint Cummin

My mistake. I could not find a thread of sense in it. It all seemed like random, jumbled comments and questions toward an uncertain end. Thanks for the correction. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; it took me a while too. You have to read it in a rural Irish accent I think! Slán 's beannacht, Skomorokh 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's been too long since I lived in rural Ireland. Maybe that's the problem! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers as a wp:rs

Hello, on this edit [1] on Daniel Novak, you removed content with the comment that it was "more dreadful sourcing; student papers are not acceptable references for contentious material about living persons)".

Can you please point me to a guideline (if there is one) that reflects this? I am curious, as I've wondered about this for a bit, and am not sure. About the only thing I can find is from the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Are_student-run_college_newspapers_considered_reliable_sources.3F, where there doesn't seem to be much consensus. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers are typically written and supervised by amateurs with very little experience, and are very unlikely to have either a "reliable publication process" or "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question". In a normal article making uncontroversial claims, one might be able to argue that particularly high-standing student newspapers such as the Harvard Crimson can be used as sources in limited cases. But when it comes to contested negative claims about of living people as in the Daniel Vovak article, there is no room for allowances; WP:BLP#Sources. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the reply. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hey, just a line from a lowly ip to thank you for your support on my Roger Ebert point- it nugs me whenever I read a film article and time and time again he pops up, thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.250.112 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what little good it did; looks like you got the usual condescending treatment in that discussion. Skomorokh 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism GAN

I've now reviewed the Social Movements section - about 40% of the article. If it is representative of the rest of the material, then I think the issues I raise will be manageable in a normal GAH period. Especially as you are doing some work as I progress. Plan is to review the Schools of Thought tomorrow, the bottom material the day after and the lead either the same day or the next.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't envy your task! If the work to be done is not mountainous I am willing to get my hands dirty; see you on the review page. Skomorokh 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Schools of thought section is rather more work as it covers roughly two thirds of the content of the separate Anarchist schools of thought. How do you feel about chopping that back? I'm going to track down the nominator and see how much they're prepared to contribute. You're a more experienced GA reviewer than I am, but I don't think it's worth my proceeding further with the review at this point. I can either put the article on hold or fail it but the whole thing will need re-reading once the rewrite of the schools section has happenned and issues on how well the leded reflects the article, what end material should be there etc. are only relevant after the article has been reshaped.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to trim the schools of thought section right back to six paragraphs or so, but other editors love expanding it. We'll see if the latest 15kb cull sticks. As for the review, I thought it was a long shot to begin with, but I think I can handle all the non-sourcing issues you've brought up so far as long as edit-warring doesn't break out while I'm doing it; sourcing might take a little more work. In any case, you've highlighted a lot of areas to improve, and even if that does not get done immediately I'd encourage you to continue so that the editors of the article have something to check back on and work through over the coming months. Thanks for taking on this mammoth task, and I hope you'll continue it! Regards, Skomorokh 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed it on hold. I'm not sure whether the Exernal links is normally examined at GA review. I suspect that mos apart from the KSL count as self-published. DO you normally five those ections a going over in your reviews?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links aren't generally an issue in GA reviews because the criteria only address such sections in passing; namely, that they must conform to the Manual of Style (i.e. Wikipedia:LAYOUT#External_links). I often give general feedback on how the article might be improved, but that is usually optional whereas the other GA issues are do-it-all-right-or-I-fail-the-article. Hope this helps. On the specific point, I'm not sure that the publisher of an external link is among the most important factors in deciding to include it (self-published links do not seem to be verboten at least). I hope to get some substantive work done on the article today. Cheers, Skomorokh 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Let me know on my talk page when you feel it is ready for another look. Otherwise I'll aim to look in on Monday.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks Peter. Skomorokh 13:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noting a lot has been addressed but will give more detailed input over the next couple of days. Let's hope the individualist section isn't about to blow up into a full scale revert war,--Peter cohen (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article remains on hold. I've now reviewed all the main text and have produced a much smaller list of things to fix this time. I've still got to go through the references in detail, but have decided to take a rest. I will probably fix anything I find myself unless I decide a source is woefully inadequate. I'm notifying everyoen who seems to have done some work wince my first review.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear Peter, and thank you for putting so much into this review. I'll try to tackle as much as I can tonight. Skomorokh 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks. You're clearly my type of user focussing on high quality content and interested in SF and anarchism.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic; the sentiment is mutual, it's been great working with you and if you are interested in collaborating again I would be very amenable. I wish you the greatest of success on your noble endeavour. Skomorokh 15:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Successful incubation?

Hi. I'm going through the article incubator, and I noticed that you moved Simbo Olorunfemi in there after an AfD found it lacking. It's been developed quite a bit since then; do you think it's ready to move back into mainspace? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's in great shape, but moving it to the mainspace now would be consistent with the will of the AfD participants; go for it. Skomorokh 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Skomorokh. I just wanted to say a rather belated thanks for your !vote at my RfA. Of all the comments I thought might come up, I have to say that "he's so good he can't have been editing for just a year and a half" was definitely not on the list! Of course you did miss one possibility: my original account might not have been tied to my real identity just so I could come across as 'honest' when I made my sock :) Anyway, instead of sitting here trying to sow doubts I'll just say thanks again for the trust - I'll endeavour not to prove you wrong. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, though, that is not what I did. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Olaf, and hearty congrats on your successful bid. My concern wasn't that "he's so good he can't have been editing for just a year and a half" but "he's so squeeky clean I hope he isn't a sock" – we've had quite a few villains returning with an innocent face recently. The reason I wasn't worried in your case was not that socking could be definitively ruled out, but that by tying your account to your real identity (or audaciously seizing that of this Davis fellow!), you created a great incentive for yourself to behave. Be assured, if you ever go rogue I shall write sternly-worded letters to your colleagues and friends damning your character in the nastiest of terms ;) Seriously though, I am sorry to have felt the need to cast aspersions on the histories of great editors like yourself; we edit in troubled times. Regards, Skomorokh 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuli Kupferberg

The trouble with the edit you have just made to this article is that, apparently, part of what you excised is a blockquote from Allan Ginsberg's poem. I haven't verified this myself, but assuming it is true, then it is a verifiable fact that Ginsberg did publish this (certainly notable) "information" about Tupferberg. The problem we have is that nobody has found a published reference for the claim that it is partly fictional. I suppose that it does come under WP:BLP and should be removed; but it is just a matter of time before somebody else comes across the poem, assumes that the account is factual, and re-adds it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Colin; the likely assumption of truth is why I removed the poem. If someone can add reliably supported contextual text after the extract that's great, but for now the responsible thing to do is to omit the material in question. Regards, Skomorokh 13:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the truth of something that came directly from the subject's mouth into the ears of his friends but has not been published is, frankly ridiculous, and is making people who hear about this laugh a lot.

If I write that Jesus was born from a virgin does Wikipedia have to believe it because I can cite a published reference?

How stupid and crazy can people be to think that someone could really jump off the Manhattan bridge and not get hurt, and it's got to be that way because Allen Ginsberg said so in a poem.

I am Tuli Kupferberg's most intimate friend, lover, travelling companion when he was well enough to travel, videographer, co-producer of his public access show Revolting News, producer of his YouTube channel "tulifuli," the female voice on the "daily perverbs" series, and cover girl as well as cover photographer for his last book" Teach Yourself Fucking ." I either see or talk to him every day and have done so for nineteen years. If you are human beings and not robots, please do not undo this edit and don't believe everything you read in poetry books---lightning49, Thelma Blitz.

Hello Thelma, and thanks for stopping by. We reject unpublished hearsay about living persons precisely for the unreliability of such claims. Anyone could show up here claiming to be Thelma Blitz and were we to accept such sources, they could have all sorts of misleading, propagandistic or slanderous material added to articles without us having any way to ascertain their truth. We editors of the encyclopaedia are, for the most part, not professional scholars, journalists or biographers, but amateurs, and cannot responsibly research such matters first-hand. That is why verifiability, the principle that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, is a founding principle of the encyclopaedia. You might also be interested in reading the biographies of living persons policy. I hope this helps explain things, and that the benefit concert is a great success. Regards, Skomorokh 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bicolour flags

I noticed that you deleted the page on bicolour flags because it was "transwikied to another project". I want to create a Wikipedia article for this because every other type of flag has coverage, but is there anything I should know first? Saumoarush (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Sauomarush[reply]

Ciao, Saumoarush. The page I deleted was Gallery of bicolor flags. It was just a gallery of images rather than an encyclopaedia article, so not appropriate for inclusion on this project. The content is now on Wikimedia Commons, at Bicolor flags. If you're looking to write an actual prose article then please feel free to do so. Regards, Skomorokh 13:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]