User talk:Skomorokh/᠑

Russian Radical
I somewhat presumptuously moved the sandbox article about Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical into the mainspace, since it was already better than many articles that have been in the mainspace for years! I'm not sure if it is appropriate to leave the cross-namespace redirect or not, but a move rather than a copy seemed necessary since three different editors had contributed to the sandbox. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait until RL number two was happy with the summary of contents, but no objection to the move. I'll delete the redirect at a later date once the incoming links have lost their importance. Care to submit it to T:TDYK? Thanks for the great work on this and Goddess by the way. Skomorokh,  barbarian  18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on what would be relevant? I considered DYK for a couple of previous articles, but I can never think of anything that seems to fit. I may be too familiar with the subject matter to judge its DYK-ness. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingness is not really a criteria; everyone spams it with minutiae no-one but themselves cares about anyway – God knows I've stuffed dozens of hooks on anarchism down Main Page reader's throats over the years. I suppose the hook for the book is remarkable connection of Rand's naturalist, rationalistic, Aristotelian thought to very different Russian intellectual trends, so I would go with that. Alas, our third party sourcing is mostly confined to background and reception at the moment, so we would need some refs to back up the substance of the central thesis. Skomorokh,  barbarian  18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disneyland with the Death Penalty
Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks very much! Skomorokh,  barbarian  19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

helpme Tag, pre-resolved
Hello~ I had a helpme tag put on my talk page by another person who was actually looking for my opinion, and saw you responded here that you'd be in touch. I just wanted to clarify that I'm not in need of any assistance, though the prompt response certainly did not go unnoticed! There should be no problems with me being in contract with the editor looking for me, so consider the matter resolved. Thanks for the concern! ...Oh, and the cleanup edit, you beat me to it, ha. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, sorry should have checked the history! Mahalo, Skomorokh,  barbarian  18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for politely asking me to collapse the source list in my comment at Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy. That was very kind of you to do so rather than simply doing it yourself, and I appreciate it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I am definitely on the same page as you on the issue of altering other editors' comments. Thanks for the research on the topic, btw. Skomorokh,  barbarian  12:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Adambro. Would it be possible for you to make a comment there? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have done so. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice
I've replied to you at WP:AN/I. Thought I'd drop you a line as watching the page can be quite difficult given the number of edits it gets. Dpmuk (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call, I wasn't watching for that precise reason. Will respond there. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case I've replied again - don't feel you have to respond as the issue doesn't specifically concern you but if you wish to respond I would be interested in your reply. I'm also happy to listen to any advice you may have about a more appropriate forum for my original query as I'm certainly not aware of one.  Dpmuk (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've found it necessary to start another AN/I thread here. As you were involved last time and know some of the background I thought you may want to take a look (although obviously it's your choice). Personally I think it may now be the time for some admin action but I've deliberately tried wording the thread and this message as neutrally as possible so an admin can look at the actions of both parties. Dpmuk (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Dpmuk; I don't have anything to add to my initial advice to seek outside interested input; if you can't find anyone interested, it might be a good sign that the matter is not worth fighting over. Skomorokh,  barbarian  03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Salwa Judum itemized change request
Hello, I agree with your comment that the specific change requests that I had made needed to be itemized. I have done that now in the talk page (in the Constructive Discussions Only section). I will look forward to your thoughts on these. Thanks! Jahangir Salim (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello; I am just one of many administrators who deal with edit requests. One of my colleagues should deal with the matter shortly. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Speedy deletion declined: Thomas Grover
The reason I placed a speedy deletion tag on it was because at the time I did it had no references. But now it does so the article can stay. Glad to help. --BlackAce48 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello BlackAce. A lack of references in itself is not a reason for speedy deletion; even if the article had no references it still should not have been deleted, as being a leader of the Latter Day Saint movement is a credible indicator of significance. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  04:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Next time I will only place speedy deletion tags on truly unnotable articles. --BlackAce48 (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Skomorokh,  barbarian  04:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Cronman
You may wish to comment at Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (3rd nomination). -- Eastmain (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done so. Skomorokh,  barbarian  16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth in Numbers
Please contact me if you re-list this for deletion. The goalpost shifting on the release date ad nauseum and minimal media coverage (blogs and press releases aside) speak volumes to the non-notability of this non-existent film. JBsupreme (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I may, thanks. Skomorokh,  barbarian  16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dance magazine
I don't know if you're aware but the content you removed isn't showing up on the talk page like you intended it to. Just thought you might like to know. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack! Thanks for catching that, I've fixed it now. Mahalo, Skomorokh,  barbarian  19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now ;-) // Gbern3 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
You denied the move from United States House of Representatives elections, 2009 to Special elections to the 111th United States Congress. Your reason was that the page already exists. At the time I requested the move, it was a redirect. After that, it became a very rudimentary version of what I intended it be after the move. If you stand by your decision, the 2009 page will become a redirect to 111th, and I will make 111th what I intended it to be in the first place. That result is the functional equivalent of a cut-and-paste move, but if that is the result you want, so be it. -Rrius (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I declined the move because it would have resulted in the deletion of helpful navigational content, not on the merits of the page title. If the pages are redundant; merge one to the other with a redirect, and choose your preferred title. Sort out what you want at which titles, and make another proposal; it might help to request input from the WikiProject. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  11:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did request input from the relevant wikiproject. In any event, the 2009 article has numerous edits in its history, but 111th has two: its creation as an incorrect redirect, and repurposing into what it is now. If you are fine with losing the history (something I thought we were supposed to preserve), that's on you. I'm going ahead with the changes. If you want to do the move or merge the histories, please do. -Rrius (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See here fellow, petulance will get you nowhere – the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm just going to walk forward swinging my feet in the air and if you get kicked it's your fault" is not going to incense me into cleaning up after your mess. Do you want to retain two separate pages? If so, tell me the titles you want them at and I will make the appropriate moves; if not, just redirect the one you have no use for. Skomorokh,  barbarian  12:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't meant as a playground threat. I attempted to go through the system to have United States House of Representatives elections, 2009 to Special elections to the 111th United States Congress. The latter was just a redirect to an article it should never have redirected to because of my error. My intention was to put the information from the former article into the special election page with information on the Senate special elections. Before I requested the move, I posted the idea at the relevant project page, and met with no opposition. After I had requested the move, another editor took the special election redirect and made it a list of a few links, all of which would also be included in the page as I envisioned it. You then closed and denied the request. How in the world you took, "I'm going to go ahead and do the cut-and-paste move because that is what it seems you are telling me to do, but feel free to do a real move anyway" into a "playground threat" is beyond me. In any event, I've made 2009 a redirect, and expanded 111th, as I said I would. Once again, if you want to do the move or merge the histories, go ahead. I can redo the expansion if necessary. If you actually reread the contribution you called a playground threat, you'll see that was all I was saying. Either way, "fellow", do what you will. -Rrius (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -Rrius (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice Thread
I've replied again in this thread User talk:Skomorokh but thought I'd leave a message at the bottom of you talk page in case you missed it given that it's gone quite a way up the page. Feel free to delete this message once you've got it. Dpmuk (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Byron move
Phew! Thanks! Any more of that discussion and I would have been driven to drink (I say as I quaff my second calvados for breakfast!) :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reaching for the razorblades when I saw this section title; thank goodness you come bearing relief instead! I read through the debate twice, once from the top and once from the bottom trying to convince myself to close it each way, but came up with nothing. Breakfast sounds like a good call! Skomorokh,  barbarian  12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the title (obviously!) I think I would have closed it the same way you did. There are reasonable arguments either way and it has been at this title for many years. No consensus is the correct call - and not a moment too soon! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Query
Over the past couple of weeks there has been an ongoing drive to push the book Unveiling the Enigma: Who stole the hands of Juan Peron? by User talk:Stuart.weiner5 and now User:Daniel Five, who is probably just a sockpuppet of Stuart.weiner5. One purpose accounts dedicated to spamming. - DonCalo (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I filed a Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Five. - DonCalo (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, thanks; that seems plausible. I hadn't realised socking was at issue from your initial edit. Thanks for getting back to me, Skomorokh,  barbarian  02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

RM backlog barnstar

 * Why thank you! And only about three of them came back from the dead too... Skomorokh,  barbarian  02:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for Groupoid
Skomorokh--

Hi. I requested the move because I wanted to create a disambiguation page, and wanted to be sure all of the contributors were aware that I was going to do it.

I didn't actually expect anyone else to move the page for me.

Do you have any problem with ME moving the page so that the two meanings of "groupoid" can be disambiguated?

DavidHobby (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullo David. Sorry for the misunderstanding; when you use that particular template (movereq) it means you are starting a discussion that an outside editor (usually an administrator) will come by and close after a while. In the case of titles which could refer to different topics, we usually disambiguate as follows:

Title X, with possible meanings A, B, C, D where A is the primary topic:

Article about A is at title X, with a disambiguation page at X (disambiguation), and the others at X (B), X (C), and X (D).

If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page is at X, with the others at X (A), X (B) and so on.

Where there are only two meanings of the ambiguous term, it is not necessary to have a separate disambiguation page, because an editor who comes to the wrong page can just read the hatnote and find the page they are looking for. Hope this helps, Skomorokh,  barbarian  03:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a disambiguation page would not be necessary for navigation. I want it, because I disagree that either term is the primary meaning.  (I imagine that if I arbitrarily changed things so that the OTHER meaning was primary, and marked the existing one as a hatnote, that there would be problems.  Although it would still be fine for navigational purposes.)  Sorry to involve you in a political issue...  DavidHobby (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay David, if you feel strongly that the primary topic issue is important enough to justify a disambiguation page even without the navigational need, please feel free to go right ahead – you did give ample notification in advance after all. Best, Skomorokh,  barbarian  15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Basket of Puppies 04:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol
No need for email, just put 'Tyciol' into your browser. This is what annoys me - LJ tried the cloak and dagger stuff, assuming everyone would say "OMG paedos" and run away. Didn't work, just caused drama, and they targeted at least one all female fanfic community and branded at least 20 members as paedophiles....before being forced to take it all back. LJ now has some nice clear guidelines. We need some, because it is evident that some admins will block anyone they suspect of paedophilia (regardless of on wiki activity) and I honestly believe there is a possibility that some would block any of the Pornish Pixies (see LJ above), should they have a Wikipedia account, while someone else in that thread confirmed that in fact Arbcom are aware of some people who are self identified paedophiles and do edit Wikipedia and will not be blocked because they do not make any pro paedo statements on-wiki --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Elen. I agree entirely that the current strategy of dealing with these circumstances is foolhardy and would likely result in disaster should a false accusation be made or should the editors try to stand up for themselves. It is not my impression after discussing the matter with arbitrators that they would tolerate editors of the sort you refer to, though their position in this area is far from coherent. The source and justification of the current practice has yet to be made clear, but once it is, either the Wikimedia Foundation or the English Wikipedia will need to have a serious discussion. Skomorokh,  barbarian  13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy is not "paedophiles cannot edit Wikipedia" (I'm aware of two who are respected editors), the policy is "engaging in anything that resembles pro-paedophilia activism is grounds for a permanent ban which cannot be discussed on-wiki". --Carnildo (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Not that I want to know who they are. I think the answer re guidance is that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to take this over.  I believe from the SixApart/LJ case, the risk of collateral damage from law enforcement is to Wikimedia rather than Wikipedia.  I'm not sure of the best way to take this forward.  The two issues - "should wikipedia be edited by persons identified as paedophiles" and "what should happen when an editor suspects that another editor is a paedophile" are separate, but an unwillingness to bite the bullet on the first makes it difficult to discuss the second. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvio! 828
Apologies, I should have mentioned in the prod that the content is almost identical to that found in the parent Obvio! article, which itself has problems. Hope this helps,  Gazi moff  14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, but if that is the case a redirect would be much more appropriate. By PRODding we are saying that it would be better that the content is visible only to administrators, which hardly seems justified here. Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops...!
Hi, Sko. I clobbered it for being too short, but I never do so when an established user like yourself is involved. My apologies; I'll restore it immediately. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am involved only to the extent that I had the redlink watchlisted. My concern is that while the article was a single-line stub, it did not consist "only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images" and so does not really fall under WP:G3. But thanks for much for your swift response! Skomorokh,  barbarian  01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. I went ahead and restored it with a construction template. It would be a really worthy addition. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC redux
A discussion about whether of not Infobox book should create external links from OCLC numbers is posted here. You are being notified because you participated in a discussion at the template's talkpage about this functionality. Please stop by and include your input. Thanks. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I have the page watchlisted. I went ahead and copied my comment from the previous discussion. Mahalo, Skomorokh,  barbarian  12:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Election method
Hi Skomorokh, I have commented here. Would you please consider amending the preface of the section on election method? Risker (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up and sorry for the confusion, I have replied there. Skomorokh,  barbarian  14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Apologies, was meant for ikip and DF. Verbal chat  17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, it made me laugh at least; you do realise shopping out edit warring tickets when you are alone reverting against a version that has been supported by half a dozen others makes you look rather ridiculous? Skomorokh,  barbarian
 * I'm tired and fed up is all, that's also why I didn't bother posting it in the correct place (it was a reply with the same heading). Supporting policy and trying to fix the ARS does seem to be a fools errand. Verbal chat  17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation/core
Hi Skomorokh, could you please comment at User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2009/November? I discovered that this edit of yours to Template:Citation/core is the one that made cite journal, cite book, etc. stop working with Harv footnotes. But since in your edit summary you say someone requested that edit, I'm hoping you can give some clarification about why it was requested, what it was meant to do, etc., before I change it. Thanks, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but feel absolutely free to revert any edit I make to a template on request; I'm not technically proficient and only help out because few others are. Skomorokh,  barbarian  21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, it looks like the template talk page has a long discussion about this from late September. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it at the request of Eubilidies, who usually knows their stuff... Skomorokh,  barbarian  21:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)