User talk:Skomorokh/〤

DYK for Harold H. Thompson (anarchist)

On September 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harold H. Thompson (anarchist), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD closure

I'd like to ask you to review the closure you made for the AfD WP:Articles for deletion/Tay Dizm (2nd nomination). The sole claim to notability is that he had a record that charted, yet nobody can provide a reliable source that shows this. That flies in the face of WP:V and makes him fail WP:MUSICBIO. If you review the arguements for keep provided, 2 of the 3 !votes were based on this unsupported claim. The third keep was based partially on the unverified claim and the statement that the article is "well sourced". Nothing verifiable in the article gets him past notability. These were keep !votes that added up to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the article for deletion, and in two weeks no-one stepped forth to agree with your assessment, while three editors contradicted it. There are very few instances where such a situation would give rise to anything other than retaining the article, and this is not one of them. MUSICBIO is a guideline describing norms that have been used in the past by editors in assessing the suitability of a topic; it is not proscriptive. If you still feel the closure was inappropriate, please feel free to request deletion review by impartial outsiders. Regards, Skomorokh 22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nobody took time to look into it and !vote doesn't negate the fact that the claim in the article is unsourced. I just wanted to try talking to you before I took it to DRV. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the matter's at DRV here, where there is sympathy for both sides.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that I was clear that I was going to take it to DRV above. I guess I should have provided a link. My error. Just to be clear: I'm not blaming you or trying to be a PITA. This was an unusual AfD. Like I said at DRV, I've nominated ones that got deleted and some that got kept. This is the only time I've taken one there. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, S. Skomorokh 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:DVRNote|Felicia Tang]]SPNic (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Naming conventions instability

Hi Skomorokh: I notice you're an admin "gatekeeper" at the moment for a proposal at MOSNUM.

I've been meaning to raise with someone the rampant instability of the NC policy over the past week or so. One user has been blocked and there has been incivility on the talk page (recently raised at WP:AE, although it appears that was the wrong place). The NC page has been subjected to frequent edits and reverts.

The page itself does need a thorough revamping, but my creation of a sandbox page for users to shape has been ignored (indeed has been deleted).

I wonder whether you'd mind keeping an eye on things, perhaps with a view to locking the page for a while and prompting users to negotiate on a newly created draft page. Tony (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Tony. I sympathise with your concerns at the instability of the NC page – I watch a few MOS pages, and am very disheartened by the capriciousness of the changes there. I would be more than happy to volunteer as gatekeeper on NC, except for the fact that I think admins acting in that capacity ought to be well-versed in it, and be able to tell sound arguments from timewasting nonsense. The same goes for protection of the page – the MOS isn't something for which the wrong version can be tolerated. So I should think that there are others far more qualified for the task than I – perhaps an administrator longer in the beard and deeper in the trenches. Regards, Skomorokh 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand revert

I think the edit that you recently reverted on Ayn Rand was actually in keeping with this discussion for the {{Persondata}} template. (I almost reverted it myself until I decided to investigate further first.) It should probably go back to the way Colorajo made it, unless there's something else that you know that I don't. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread it as being an infobox reversion. Thanks for noticing that, Skomorokh 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bramall Hall

Thanks for editing this. WRT this, it does mean you can walk around on your own. I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it though. If you can think of a way, that would be great! Majorly talk 22:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – I'm going to give the article a run-through, possibly leaving it worse off in places, then discuss the problematic parts on talk. (No objection to you reverting whatever you like after). Skomorokh 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be a good editor you need to knw the rules

Regarding BioniX Wallpaper page. This page should not be just deleted. Skomorokh you should read wikipedia rules: "you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.40.14 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I acted according to the rule that states such an article may be deleted if it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." The BioniX Wallpaper article made no such indication. Regards, Skomorokh 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I responded to your message on my talk page. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for constantly helping me on IRC!

Hello Skomorokh,

This is Vanessa - I have been coming on IRC for help couple times and received many feedbacks from all of you. First, I wanted to thank you for doing some cleanup on the article (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Halliburton) - that was really nice of you! :) I went back to talk to the PR with the previous suggestions on IRC and we've compiled a list of more credible sources and added the suggestion on the discussion page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Halliburton#Company_Profile_and_Other_Information_-_to_be_updated As AjCham has also suggested on IRC, I've also contacted one of the WikiProjects Companies person by leaving a note on his talk page. So, I wanted to check with you as well, if there is any suggestion? We are currently working on the history timeline that you have opened for discussion - that should be fun :) and thank you again for having an interest for this article!

Looking forward to hear more from you! Sorry for the delay in thanking you ... it was still a strugle to just learn how to leave a message on your talk page LOL!

Sincerely.

Vana2009 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Vanessa, good to hear from you again. Yes, I had a look at the article after you raised the issue, and it is very far from satisfactory. I'm sure your PR team and Wikipedia editors can mutually benefit from interaction, and I will join you on the article talkpage. Sorry the wiki is difficult to work around! Regards, Skomorokh 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Skomorokh, interesting other discussions you have in here :)

I've tried contacting one of the person from the WikiProjects - did get a response back, but I was suggested back that I could make the edits myself as long as its all NPOV.

So I went ahead and made 3 minor edits - mainly because the headquarter info is wrong and few stats numbers. I know I know ... hope I am not going to be slapped on my hands, but all the sources I've provided are credible (external sites!) Think it's ok? It is not easy to find people involved and interested in your article suddenly ... Ok, let me know your thoughts!

Thanks - Vanessa

Vana2009 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Convert

My apologies for the waste of your time; the {{editprotected}} was improperly added by another user when the request was entirely too vague to warrant that template. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. Skomorokh 07:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:UserRights/Blackanguskhan

Confused here... User has way more than 10 edits and 4 days, why was confirmed necessary? –xeno^talk 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly couldn't create articles. Remove if you think it's superfluous; cheers, Skomorokh 23:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen one or two where they were having similar problems I wonder if there's some underlying issue. –xeno^talk 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter or blacklist problems I'd guess, but then I am not technically-oriented. *shrug* Skomorokh 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Mishavonna Henson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mishavonna Henson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 20:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country data San Marino

Thank you for making the edit to Template:Country data San Marino for me. I'm an idiot and typo'd it. Could you please replace the line

| flag-alias-1465 = Old Flag of San Marino.svg

with

| flag alias-1465 = Old Flag of San Marino.svg

, with a space between flag and alias. Sorry! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yishk, this is why I don't like fulfilling protected edit requests on code I don't understand! Done (I think). Regards, Skomorokh 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you. Sorry! :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your closing of the Chicago Weekly AFD

Hello. I would like to discuss your closing of the AFD of Chicago Weekly, which I nominated. While the majority of voters did in fact vote "keep", I believe that the consensus of the discussions as based upon reasons went in favor of the delete-voters. Excluding the final two votes, which had complete nonreasons, the three voters tried to assert notability by 1)stating that the newspaper had won awards (which is irrelevant unless the awards are particularly significant, which they weren't in this case), 2)pointing to the circulation number (which isn't itself so unusually large to merit notability despite a lack of sources), and 3) a WP:GHITS argument which I showed was skewed. In conclusion, I think this is one of the cases where consensus doesn't go with the majority votes because none of them (in my opinion) adequately showed any evidence of solid references or a reason why we should IAR the GNG. Thanks for hearing my argument. — DroEsperanto (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers — DroEsperanto (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Sorry, completely missed this first time 'round. Will take a look later, Skomorokh 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've revisited this discussion. Of the two editors favouring deletion, the second's rationale was simply a "fails X/not important to me" non-argument; the first descended into an inconclusive stalemate with a keep-favouring editor over subjective impressions and questionable speculations of circulation and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-therefore-keep and -therefore-delete. Thus far, nothing remotely approaching consensus to delete. The first keep argued, again, on subjective judgments of importance based on WP:BIGNUMBER; not terribly convincing; the other four experienced editors favouring retention argued on a wide variety of rationales including the awards won by the entity, its place in history, and its prominence accorded by location and stature. So on the delete side of the discussion we have two worthless or contradicted opinions, and on the keep side not terribly convincing but numerous and varied rationales. The flaw in your request here is assuming firstly that the burden of proof is always on the editors favouring retention to make their case and secondly that the notability guidelines are "rules" to be disobeyed only in extraordinary circumstances. The first assumption betrays an inaccurate account of the history and values of the project: the absence of consensus defaults to keep for a reason – deletion is a last resort for unsalvagable content. The second assumption, perhaps a result of WP:CREEP, misinterprets the notability guidelines as policy set-in-stone that must be met at all costs, rather than descriptions of a motley collection of standards that have been popularly proffered in the past. The observation that the rationales employed by the experienced editors in that discussion were atypical does not make them invalid, nor by any means overruled by the paltry counterarguments. Were I feeling significantly more prescriptivist at the time of closing the discussion I might have charitably called it "no consensus" with the same outcome, but that would have been a misrepresentation of the dynamics of the discussion. I hope this helps clarify the close. Regards, Skomorokh 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charles Turner

What would suggest as an alternate naming schema? It seemed foolish to me to distinguish 5 people (who were alive simultaneously) by their birth/death dates rather than occupation, as the latter is more likely to be known by somebody searching for them. Also, sorry for the wrong template, it was the only one I could remember for attracting admin attention OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand template

Regarding the summary for this edit, as much as I wish the Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality article were deleted, in fact it is still around. Sending it to AfD been discussed, but hasn't been done. I have no objection to the article's absence from the template regardless of the edit summary, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't any mistaken impression on your part that this article was actually gone. --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, my memory is slipping. I was sure that had been parcelled off somewhere. Sorry again for being hasty and for putting you to the trouble of cleaning up after me. Skomorokh 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I was absolutely fine with the edit itself; I was only questioning the summary. It's an article that doesn't need to be in the template or in the encyclopedia. But I'm not sure what to do with it. It covers one of the many political and cultural issues that Rand and other Objectivists have commented about and for which there is some disagreement within the movement. In that sense it is similar to Libertarianism and Objectivism -- except that the literature on the latter subject is easily a hundred times larger! Essentially it is a minor fork article that made some degree of sense when there were lots of fork articles about Objectivism, but now most of the other forks are gone and this is all but an orphan (almost every link to it is via the templates). My natural inclination would be to say it should be merged into Ayn Rand and or Objectivist movement. But the level of detail in those articles has been trimmed to the point that incorporating any significant amount of material from the fork article could create a WP:UNDUE problem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, my thoughts exactly. In a complete Wikipedia, this topic would not look out of place. In our new slimmed down Randosphere, it sticks out. Raise the matter at WP:RANDWATCH maybe? Skomorokh 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been talked about before, and the consensus there seems to be for deleting it. But when I prodded the article it was objected to by an editor from the LGBT studies project. I'm taking a run at editing the article now since it contains a fair amount of dubious material (lots of cite needed tags, possible synthesis/OR material). Perhaps after a rework the contents will be more suitable for merging, or if not then at least it can be given a best effort at rescue before AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for trying to salvage it. Skomorokh 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship-related conversations

Another user I've prompted to stand for adminship in the past is User:Fences and windows. Whatcha think? Worth prompting him again?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this editor earlier. I am not too familiar with them, though I have noticed their sterling work at AfD. Would such a prodigious contributor in that area be controversial because of the deletion wars? Skomorokh 17:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, yes. But does that make him a non-starter?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong editor, I'm afraid. I'd definitely recommend asking/reviewing them. Skomorokh 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you dropped a line on this topic to Mayalld. I also think Mayalld is a good candidate, but note that Mayalld has made no contributions in more than one month. --Orlady (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that Orlady. I'll make a note on WT:RFA. BTW, while trawling around the wiki yesterday I had you picked out as an excellent prospect for RfA, before realising you already were one. D'oh! Cheers, Skomorokh 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vetting

Replaced John Doe with my handle -- this whole thing sounds like a pretty good idea. Good work! :) — neuro^(talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for guineapigging! Skomorokh 21:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can keep the fur for the winter, s'all good. :) — neuro^(talk) 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, guess what just turned up on my playlist? "Wikipedia Life" – hands down the best song about the 'pedia. So your furry inclinations are forgiven! Skomorokh 22:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH BLARGY SOMEONE SAVED THAT SONG I AM SO EMBARRASED BLOODY HELL D: — neuro^(talk) 22:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it blaring while on CSD patrol, makes it far more fun. my mom says im cool Skomorokh 22:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, I just listened to it. I don't remember when I recorded that, but bloody hell my voice was high. I can't believe you reminded me of this crap. :( — neuro^(talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of vetting ... I sent my comments via private email to Neuro, are we supposed to be making some kind of edit when we offer private feedback? - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's set in stone, do whatever you think would improve the process. If neither the reviewer or the prospect mind it being public that someone reviewed, I would think personally that transparency would be the way to go, though the page might need a little tweaking to accommodate this. Skomorokh 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

Per this edit[1] perhaps it was not your intent but please do be careful not to blank statements by the parties. I didn't mean to violate any rules about comment placement, and intentionally created a section separate from the one used by the uninvolved administrators. Likely it should have gone above, rather than below, that section. If you ever see I've put something in the wrong place feel free to leave a friendly note on my talk page and I'll take care of it, or just move it yourself. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; my objection was purely sectional. Regards, Skomorokh 10:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cute word that, sectional. Wikidemon (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help with my adoptee!

{{Happy thoughts and whatnot}} A Nobody^{My talk} 04:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help. Cheers, Skomorokh 04:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity

Nice tidy up, I was in a rush earlier this morning. --Snowded ^TALK 11:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That article, like far too many other philosophy articles, makes me want to cry. Skomorokh 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Naturalism one gets me, one of these days I'm going to sit down and tackle a few of them --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could be immeasurably improved simply by grabbing the first handful of introductory college philosophy textbooks on the library shelf and weaving their entries on the topic together. Skomorokh 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gayness

Hey, just so you know, the semi-protection template has broken the redirect... Until It Sleeps ^alternate 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Moments in the Wikipedia Career of Skomorokh. Skomorokh 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stwalkerster tried to fix it, but it didn't work, so I just removed the template. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fix worked for me... Skomorokh 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's odd... Well, the little lock couldn't even be seen in the first place, so imo, it would have been pointless to have it there anyways. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise IRC admins concur. Skomorokh 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]