User talk:Skomorokh/च

Our_Feature_Presentation
Can you clarify this? The editor followed the exact instructions at copyviocore to create a /Temp page. You then userfied it with the comment "sandboxes don't belong in the mainspace", when it was the copyviocore template that set its location. At it's new location, the Copyvio/preload template is now broken. Should copyviocore be updated to reflect that doing exactly what it says is considered wrong? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should, but you would be wise to get broader input. I have no objection to the page being moved back to ensure everything works this time, but I believe the template offers bad advice. WP:VPT might be a good place to ask. Regards, the skomorokh  21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand what was done and why... and agree that the copyvio tag gave bad information... but I have noted on the original article's talk page the new location of the TEMP article and made the same clarification at the AfD. I feel confident that editors can now find the in-work article if they lok atthe talk page.. though the copyvio tag redirect will not take them there. Next question, how will I know when the "matter is addressed", and who will then remove the copyvio tag? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the offending section, so you are free to merge the temporary page back into the original article, and copyright should no longer be an issue. Hope this helps, the skomorokh  23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You da man! Thank you. Will merge now per WP:Merge. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any time, glad to help. Regards, 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
Thanks for your help in contributing to the David Sirlin article. --nothingxs (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. It looks like it might be deleted (not a lot of really significant coverage of the man yet), but at least now it has a fighting chance. Good luck with it, and I hope this episode won't put you and your cadre off editing Wikipedia. Ciao, the skomorokh  00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Egoist anarchism
I've started a section on egoist views on property and was wondering if you could help with it. Zazaban (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to, and will do so as soon as I get the time and access to my books. Definitely within the next few days. Ciao, the skomorokh  11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Elegance of the Hedgehog
Yes, yes. May I know when are you going to put the article on hold? --Efe (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give a thorough review once the current issues are fixed, and then I'll put it on hold for at least a week to give you time to address any remaining issues. Hope this suits, the skomorokh  11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll be addressing your concerns as soon as I'm not busy with other stuffs, hopefully tomorrow. --Efe (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, look forward to it. the skomorokh  11:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Majority of the concerns have been addressed, Skomorokh. --Efe (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they have, great work! I'll give a full review in the next day or so, and will likely put the article on hold for a week thereafter. the skomorokh  14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its fine. I'll be checking it later. --Efe (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the article to GA. --Efe (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin!
Aloha. I am unable to move Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) to Chinese Exclusion Act. Could you do it please? The parenthesised disambiguation is unnecessary as there does not seem to be any other articles on topics called "Chinese Exclusion Act". the skomorokh 13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I suggest using db-move next time. Regards  So Why  13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks very much. the skomorokh  13:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Conversation
So I don't really understand your talk page archival system. Our previous discussion (which I forgot to check up on, :( sorry) has seemed to disappear. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I archive after 30k or so. The archives are listed in chronological order at the top of the page; the one you want is here. Regards, the skomorokh  17:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bsimmons 666  (talk) Friend? 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your near-death experiences question on Ref desk
Hi Skomorokh:

It seems to me there is something wrong with your question. Is it meant to be offensive to the Dutch or is there a typo in it?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, mere cultural differences I assure you. You see, my question was written in British English. Sorry for the confusion! the skomorokh  19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an uneasy feeling that I'm being foolish to pursue this issue but that hasn't stopped me before. I enjoyed the link to Skomorokh - I had wondered about your username - but all it gave me relevant to the matter at hand was the notion that perhaps your mention of the Dutch was in jest.  As for British English, I'm puzzled. Are Brits especially prone to choose the Dutch as objects of ridicule (as, for example) Canadians used to and sometimes still use Newfoundlanders?  CBHA (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but among their few redeeming characteristics is a penchant for gratuitously-directed ridicule (cf. Monty Python, Austin Powers, Bill Bailey). The French, Germans and, increasingly, the Americans would be better candidates for the targets of British derision, I'd wager. the skomorokh  23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

interesting question
about the rollback--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. One must conclude that either the hombre is an excellent lurker, very rapid learner or has been around before. Never can be too careful. the skomorokh  21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Dank55
Just a note on your recently changed last question, but per his first edits to his user page and more importantly the actual text of his rollback request I'm guessing that Dan's experience at Wikia is probably the reason behind his knowledge and ability. Pedro : Chat  22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed the mention of Wikia but wanted to keep the question brief and to the point; it's also possible that the candidate did not want the Wikia information disclosed, in which case I would have been quite ashamed to have publicised it. Regards, the skomorokh  22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Pynchon
Have you ever seen references like this before? How ancient are these? Is it, do you think, worthwhile to make the effort of updating them? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At first glance there's nothing ancient about them, just regular non-inline references that ought to be cited via footnotes (e.g. "Rushdie 1990"). But looking at the actual coding, I see what you mean; no idea what function the  provides - an alternate form of , perhaps? Ok...looking at the text it seems they're some sort of Harvard referencing and function quite well where intact. Updating would mean using Harvnb, I'd guess, and seeing as it's supposed to be a featured article I'd say it would be worth the effort. I see that you left a talkpage comment in May, and that the original contributors are legion and awol. Go for it. the skomorokh  03:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had actually forgotten about leaving that message, and was shocked to see that no one had responded to it. The article is, overall, in good shape, but I find the refs style truly unhelpful. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries
My apologies - I could have sworn I put just such an entry in the edit summary - my bad for which I heartily grovel. I did however put a comment on the talk page of the article to open the subject. This is such a normal part of book and novel infoboxes that we need to be clear on how to standardise the use of cover images - mainly to comply with all policies and keep the size of images in check and stylistically consistent across similar articles. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only noticed the talk discussion after I saw your edit, and had presumed you had undid without commenting; I've replied at the talkpage about the specific issue. Cheers, the skomorokh  12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * It's my pleasure entirely, thank you! the skomorokh  18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Left-libetarian
Is it just me, or do you think this qualifies as a redirect for deletion? I could not believe it was not a redlink. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah dude, it's perfectly appropriate as a slight misspelling (I've lost count of the times I've typed anacrhist, for example). the skomorokh  05:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does make sense. I have the spelling feature turned on in Firefox, so misspelled words---as well as the thousands of words it does not recognize---are highlighted.  Fun. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I didn't realize I had made any scathing comments about the peer review process. Are you sure it was me? I'd like to help with Agrippa, but I'm afraid my real-life duties simply preclude my ability to provide assistance at this time. Good luck with the article, though! Scartol •  Tok  05:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries; thought I heard you comment on a podcast somewhere, but perhaps it was someone else. Thanks for the response :) the skomorokh  05:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Hi Skomorokh: Thanks for rating the article on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". Would you be willing to review it as a GA or not?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes I was considering reviewing it but I'm not sure if that's appropriate given that I made some contributions to it and advocated its survival as a standalone article. the skomorokh  21:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, please do. I'm more interested in improving the article in any way, so that I can be ready for a future peer review, and then FA. Ultimately, GA will give way to an FA, I hope, so your views on the quality of the article is what is more interesting to me. I would really appreciate it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, I would be happy to review the article. I'm afraid the GA review will be brief ;) but I shall have a lot to say at peer review as the article heads for FA. Allow me a couple of days, if that is not too long. I am very interested in this article. Regards, Skomorokh  17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Book of Eli
I have nominated The Book of Eli, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Book of Eli. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eric, replied. the skomorokh  00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Handlebar Club

 * I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome the front page now is. Thanks ;), Skomorokh  19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein
You restored the piece which I deleted in error (somehow the footnote in the end of the paragraph skipped my eye), and I am OK here, sorry. Also, when I wrote "well-known" I mean "well-known to those who work in the field", rather than "well-known to American TV-watchers". That said, here is the corrected statement" "only sources from recognized authorities in the field are unconditionally valid references." Of course in some contexts even references to George Bush utterances on nuclear physics may be valid, but with due caution and appropriateness. `'Míkka>t 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries about the edits, but I'm still not sure I follow your rationale. If a minor academic nobody knows, with a PhD in English literature from a reputable university, gets an article published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, then surely her article is a reliable source regardless of the fact that she is not well-known? Skomorokh  23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not unconditionally. Case-by-case. In particular, xis fact finding (if xe provided reasonable evidence) is worth citing, but his conclusions and opinions are encyclopedic only if seconded by recognized experts in the field, per WP:FRINGE. Judging from your name, you are Russian . If it is so, you must know or hear how much bullshit has been published in Soviet/Russian scientific journals. `'Míkka>t 16:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to send a message, so I'll leave it here:
HAHA, I can't believe you were still watching that page!!! Awesome!!! It's fucking 2:00 AM here, I'm going to bed.....UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN, MY ETERNAL FOE!!!'''
 * THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE. Skomorokh  07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh/Strong

 * Do you want me to delete page User:Skomorokh/Strong? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes please Anthony, so long as it does not break any GFDL attribution links for the content in Rod Coronado. Best, Skomorokh  15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to go really bureaucratic, you may want to notice that the GFDL chain of evidence was made really thin when (a) Strong Hearts was deleted and (b) user:SoWhy userfied its content by cut and paste. So this subpage may be deleted when old contents (now live and well in Rod Coronado) of Strong Hearts are restored. I am doing this. `'Míkka>t 16:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in the bureaucracy, but I am concerned that I have used the work of other without recognizing them. It looks like restoring the history of Strong Hearts up until the cut and past has resolved this, and I'm not too bothered about the sandbox history being omitted. Thank you both for your work on this, I appreciate it. Regards, Skomorokh  17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger
Hi Skomorokh,

Just letting you know that I replied to your comment about the Heidegger article on my talk page. Thanks. Mtevfrog (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

Sorry to bother you again. I noticed there was no reply from you to the comment I left on my own talk page in response to yours. This is fine, but I just wasn't sure if you had noticed it or not. It concerned both the problems at the Heidegger article, as well as the question of the best title for the Gesamtausgabe article. Also, it seems that the Heidegger article has been locked for an indefinite period: unfortunately the version that leaves us with is quite significantly inferior to the best version prior to that. I understand that this locking of the page is not an endorsement of that version, but I'm wondering how you feel about the indefinite locking of the page. Personally, although I believe the problems are significant (and you will see from my comment on my talk page where I think that problem truly lies), I'm not convinced that the strategy by user SoWhy is the best way of approaching a resolution. Again, apologies for bothering you a second time. Mtevfrog (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the apologies are all mine to make, I initiated this discussion and have been slow in replying. I'll continue this at the article talkpage and at your talkpage. Skomorokh  16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Just letting you know that I have made a further comment on this situation on my own talk page. Thanks. Mtevfrog (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote
Hi there! I'm responding to your vote rationale in the 2008 ArbCom elections. I'm afraid I'm a little confused as to your statement that I "have no real indication of original thought". Since there are a ton of questions to answers, I figured my indications of original thought may have gotten lost in the shuffle. I recommend that you read some reforms I detailed that I would propose for ArbCom. That will help give you a sense of the concrete reforms I'd champion on the Committee. As for a sense of my approach, I'd take a look at some of my answers to some of Rschen7754's questions, especially #9. I believe my outlook is unorthodox enough to warrant describing me as a "uniquely valuable addition to the committee". I urge you to reconsider your vote. Thanks, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your statements and answers to the questions thoroughly; I'm afraid I am unimpressed. I'm even less impressed by your assumption to the contrary. Sincerely, Skomorokh  02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a negative assumption, I just figured nobody's been reading them. Oh well, thanks anyways! If you have any questions about any of my answers or statements, please feel free to ask! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. There's a while yet left in the election; I wouldn't get too downcast about the lack of attention. Regards, Skomorokh  02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Education of Lev Navrozov
Would you please take a look at the guidelines for images in Manual of Style. The book cover image in The Education of Lev Navrozov takes up half of the page, which causes the text to be difficult to read. A smaller image improves the article, making it easier to read, and is in line with Wiki guidelines. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Patience. Skomorokh  02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bouquet
My thanks and a bouquet to you Skomorokh for your patience, diligence and positively encouraging the work on The Elegance of the Hedgehog. My first experience of this kind, so thank you for making it such a good one,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Julia. I feel a tad guilty at being so stern and demanding with you all when I never had any intention of letting the article fail ;) A pleasure working with you, and I hope you'll be encouraged to submit to WP:GAN again sometime soon! Regards, Skomorokh  04:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Psst, from the article: Copy editing, a thick skin for when editorial diplomacy fails – is a qualification, no less in your position. Your push was vital. Best, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Soapy Smith
If I can impose, would you mind looking at this article, and telling me if you think I deleted anything of value? I am not going to get into an edit war with the editor who keeps reverting me, but he is clearly not looking at the content I removed. Thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you take a hard line against unreferenced content, but I'm not sure that this is an improvement. We try to avoid listy-trivia sections, and the more descriptive prose giving depth to the cultural reference, the better. You didn't really offer a rationale in your edits summaries as to why you were removing the descriptions of the "movies", nor for the unmade film or the videogame. Personally, I would try to cite and expand rather than trim to the core. I'd never come across this Soapy character before, and the line about The Sting gave me more of an idea of what sort of a chap he was. That's not of course to excuse the other editor's unhelpful reverts. Perhaps starting a talkpage discussion on what should be included would be a step forward? Alternatively, adding cited content to other areas sometimes shows the offended editor that one is not there to tear down "their" article, but to improve it. Skomorokh  04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You make some good points here. I still feel Bunco man is showing some "ownership" issues, but that is a different matter, really.  My problem, truly, more so than my "hard line against unreferenced content," which I will not dispute, is that I simply do not like "popular culture reference" sections.  In general, I find they add very little of substance to the articles burdened with them.  In this case, for example, I could easily add that a "Soapy Smith" character appears briefly in a second season episode of Deadwood, but how does that help explicate the subject?  Still, still, still!  My own intransigence aside, a discussion on the talk page might be helpful.  Thanks for your insights and comments, they are appreciated.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries; I agree that trivia—excuse me, in popular culture—sections are generally useless, but integrated into prose and referenced they can be valuable (as I've just tried to effect at Marquis de Sade). Fact is, popular perception of historical figures is influenced significantly by their cultural portrayals. It would be great if we could have a paragraph from a peer-reviewed sociology journal on Soupy's Deadwood appearance, but it probably ain't gonna han . So I suppose the question is "how much of this dodgy content is rescuable?" As someone who would much rather see green on my watchlist than read, I prefer to leave written original research in articles and to ref it up some, but nuking it is an entirely respectable strategy; is depends on whether you are an immediatist or an eventualist. I'd rather keep my rose tinted glasses ;) See you on the talkpage,  Skomorokh  01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)