User talk:Skomorokh/᠕

Refactoring of ACE comments
I don't think it's a particularly good idea to move those comment threads on the Arbcom vote comments pages to their talk pages. The Arbcom comment process – especially in its new form, where the voting itself is separated from all comment pages – is already too fragmented as is, with candidate statements, questions and comments all on separate pages; needlessly moving comments and their responses apart even further only makes things harder to find and harder to see in context. The "comment" pages themselves were not overwhelmed with talk in any of these cases. The amount of threaded dialogue was nowhere near the point where pages would have been difficult to read. Hiding dialogue away on yet another page sends the wrong message – as if we didn't want dialogue to happen. On what authority were you refactoring these pages? Was there a binding consensus about the format you are enforcing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Fut.Perf. The instructions on how to use the comment pages properly are rather clear, I think: "This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of [candidate] or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page." This convention has been established for years, reaffirmed during the discussions on the election talkpage, and does not demand bureaucratic ratification. I've moved – not refactored – the misplaced responses consistently to ensure fairness to all the candidates and commenters. Regards,  Skomorokh   16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are just carrying over the old format? Okay, but then I still disagree. That old rule made sense under the old function those pages had, because they were actual voting pages, used for counting statements. Now, these pages have a totally different function. Their function is not for counting votes, but to allow for opinions to be documented. For that purpose, the obvious wiki way is to allow threaded dialogue to form naturally – as it did, without causing any problems. Separating "comments" from discussion is counterproductive here. I would ask you to not continue these interventions (or, preferably, to revert them), unless a clear community consensus for this practice can be shown. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would put it to you that declaring that the status quo should change unless there is consensus to do otherwise is "not the wiki way". The comments pages are provided as a simple, streamlined outlet to ease voters into the new system. They are a low-drag, legibile, instant-feedback venue, that are intended to encourage editors to explain their votes without the expectation of having the candidate or others jump down their throats. Threaded discussion requires space and section headers and is discouraged on all pages like this (the moving convention is also long-established at RfA for example). I appreciate your concerns, but respectfully, I do not find your conclusions apt. Regards,  Skomorokh   17:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see where you are coming from, but to "change the status quo" is not something I am proposing unilaterally – the status quo factually has changed, through the new voting system. Under these conditions, where a new system is being tried out, the natural way is to leave the decision to those people who are actually using the pages – and so far, I get the impression there have been more people using them who have been interested in conducting threaded dialogue than people who just wanted to leave isolated statements and nothing else. And the analogy with RFA-like pages is not appropriate, because they too are vote-like processes, while these here aren't. As such, they are structurally much more closely comparable to AN comment threads, article RfCs or XfDs – all common everyday forms of discussion where bulleted opinion statements and threaded dialogue are routinely mixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fut. Perf.. We want the users to discuss usefully - this is not served by further splitting the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I expect that the intent of the pages is clear at this point; will clean up before cascade protection takes effect at the end of the election. Skomorokh  21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

bot request
Last week's Signpost report mentioned your bot request, for one that creates an alphabetical, annotate-able on-wiki version of the list of votes cast. Any update on it, or shall I not mention it in the current report? Tony  (talk)  13:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Ready for publication. Please have a look. User:Tony1/Sandbox. Tony  (talk)  16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the list is at WP:ACELOG; not terribly interesting to readers of the Signpost I expect.  Skomorokh   19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiman2222
Thankyou Skomorokh, I appreciate the offer for help! I'm sure I'll be calling on you shortly. Thanks for wanting to help us newbies! - Wikiman2222
 * No problem, any time.  Skomorokh   21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism
Hello. There is a problem with your move of mutualism (economic theory). Until a few days ago, mutualism was mutualism (biology) (see its talk page - it's the primary topic imo). There are now a couple hundred or more internal links meant for biology pointing to economics. I think this should be moved back, at the very least until the links are pointed in the right direction. Station1 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else has moved this in the meantime. Station1 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the links to the biology article did not follow it to its new destination; the economics links work either way (at (economics theory) or anywhere that redirects to). As there are now three meanings for the term, the disambiguation page seems justified.  Skomorokh   21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to tidy again
At plenty more to move to talk. --BozMo talk 10:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, go right ahead.  Skomorokh   21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would normally but it involves some fine judgement on a couple of comments involving me so I'd rather someone else did. --BozMo talk 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. I may let it slide until comments close on Monday.  Skomorokh   10:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:B&
I found this orphaned template. Is it of any current use? It would be great if it could be linked somewhere so people could find it if it is to be used. Otherwise, could we delete it? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I had intended for that, so I've hidden it away in userspace for now. Cheers,  Skomorokh   23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibson in Giant Robot
The latest issue of Giant Robot (magazine) contains an interview with Gibson. magazine cover shot for store-shelf identification. I (and Bill apparently) like the magazine in general. Recommended purchase. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A trip to the city for me today then! Thanks muchly for the heads-up :D.  Skomorokh   10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyberfiction
In case it is not already on your watchlist, this could be a good candidate for inclusion. I came across it recently by happenstance, but it has only existed since April. I am trying to figure out what I am going to do with it, as it is currently a mess. The use of the term "cyber culture" is quite different from the Wiki article of the same name, and I do not recall seeing "cyberfiction" as an umbrella term for Cyberpunk, Cybergoth, and Steampunk. Indeed, the latter is not "cyber" at all. And, Cybergoth, at least on Wiki, is a description of a subculture, not a subgenre of literature. So, as I said, a big mess. If I can't find some notable references, I may take this to AfD. Do you have any thoughts? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's this, an interesting non-Troubles article that you watch but I don't? I have to dash now, and I'll get back to you on this and the below over the weekend, but my immediate impression is that this is mostly OR and what little there is to be salvaged belongs in the Cyberpunk derivatives catch-all article (unless it can be transwiki'd somewhere). Nollaigh shona,  Skomorokh   09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please pardon the lateness of this reply. Yes, I agree with you.  Sometime next week, I will have it this with the pruning shears and then put it up for AfD. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrej Grubacic (again)
Dear Skomorokh,

I have put an rfctag (both pol and bio) on the Andrej Grubacic article. If you do get time please have a look. I have been warned-off by Grubacic's student from having anything more to do with the article so I better not get invovled. I think though your statment that "There are no notability guidelines for theorists" is being interpreted as implying "theorists do not need to meet notability guidelines" which I don't think is true. I am still not sure if it is as an author/journalist/commentator - or an "activist" (or even if being a commentator counts as being an activist) that he is notable and how we indicate notability in such cases. Anyway I think the article's tone needs changing to be less laudatory, Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Skomorokh,

Can you help me with Grubacic page? As an anarchist I find a whole discussion to be idiotic, but I made best effort to explain my arguments. They want to delete it, and I tried to give some good counter arguments. But it would be good if another anarchist would testify to his relevance.see delete entry page. Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Bob. I'm not sure I can muster the energy to explain how removing the article benefits our readers not one whit, but I'll try over the holidays. After watching this from afar I share your disillusionment to be honest.  Skomorokh   14:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I dont think I can do it by myself.Bobmarley13 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Close of voting
Hi Skomorokh – Has the close of SecurePoll been altered yet? Tony  (talk)  07:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on a reply. Assuming the worst, I intend to announce the last 12 hours of voting at midday UTC (4 hours and change).  Skomorokh   07:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, hmmm. It's a pity. Tim will almost surely be at his desk before midnight UTC, even if it's at 9am our time Monday morning (22:00 UTC Sunday). Tony   (talk)  08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, but then it is a weekend. Would any other developers be able to alter the poll do you think?  Skomorokh   08:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pinged and emailed Happy, Mr.Z and Tnzkai. I see you've already been to their talk pages. Sent an email to Tim earlier, but I guess you've done that too. He's UTC + 11 hours. The brown stuff will spatter us all if this closes a day early. Tony   (talk)  14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point all we can do is wait, and prepare for a close in nine.  Skomorokh   15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You still editing the draft? I wanted to remove the figures from the table. Perhaps leave top one in in italic as an example? Tony   (talk)  05:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still editing, finished with the table itself though. Have MrZ-man standing by on IRC to send the email.  Skomorokh   05:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, if it's to be an email, I'd better convert the links to http ones, yes? Tony   (talk)  05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, otherwise I am done with both pages, good to go.  Skomorokh   05:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo ho ho


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.
 * And to you and yours!  Skomorokh   21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM spam
I've reverted your edits to WT:RFA here. Please do not use unrelated notice boards to communicate meta-messages, whatever your good intentions. RFA and ARBCOM are, very much, not related. You might as well post at WP:FRINGE or WP:MEMORIAL as they just as (i)rrelevant. Thank you. Pedro : Chat  21:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As if WT:RFAers had anything better to do? The people, they ask for broader advertisement. Happy hols, Skomorokh   21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever. Pedro : Chat  21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to double check the time frame on that "today is the final day" notice. Durova  379 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there an announcement that does not state the end time as 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009?  Skomorokh   21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You said (in bold) that "today [13 December] is the final day." --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I wrote that "today is the final day to vote'. December 13 -> December 14 = one calendar day. The aim of the opener was for impact, the following sentence provides the precision.  Skomorokh   22:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah .... ignoring the date timing thing, exactly why did you decide to unilateraly spam various talk pages? ARBCOM hidden emails or your own (misguided) decision? An answer to that would be more important than mucking up a timezone in a post. So which is it Skomorokh? Your action alone or ARBCOM? Bear in mind that some have fallen acting as ARBCOM patsies.... Pedro : Chat  22:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly a private cabal conspiracy, and not the result of discussion in the most obvious place to look. Take me away officer, it's a fair cop!  Skomorokh   22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what - I like you. Pedro : Chat  22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From one irritable git to another, the feeling's mutual. :)  Skomorokh   22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could not agree more. I come offering cheese and port. Heh :) Pedro : Chat  22:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the today = tomorrow post looked like a typical reflection of how arbitration cases translate evidence into findings of fact... ;) Durova  379 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say "today - tomorrow = one day", but then having never been to arbitration I'll defer to your seniority :)  Skomorokh   22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * *smooch* Durova  379 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sfxprefects/Shaun_Rogerson
Dear Skomorokh you moved shaun Rogerson to my sandbox and now i believe i have improved on the article and it is ready to be put backup on wikipedia for everyone to read i have referenced all information to the sources i found them from and have added a free picture and have made a number of tables to make the information more easy to read. Thanks (User:sfxprefects (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Yo Sfxprefects, good to hear from you again. How can I help? You don't need my permission to repost the article, but it looks like another editor has nominated it for speedy deletion. Regards,  Skomorokh   21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost election report
Skomorokh, I've added your name as co-author since Hiding looks as though he's offline for a while. New title is fine. Updating before publication if the tally is released is fine (expected 04:00 UTC, but I think that's optimistic without Hiding and while Sage is travelling). After publication, Sage may agree to an update—I don't know. I'll be going out in about 45 minutes, back before 06:00 UTC. Tony  (talk)  02:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Scrutineers are Central/Eastern Europeans, Scandinavians and an Iranian, which gives a rough timezone of UTC +2. So it's almost five in the morning for them; we are unlikely to see a tally for the next four hours I'd say. I'll keep a watchful eye for the next three hours while you're out just in case.  Skomorokh   02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Steampunk, et al.
This might be outside of your bailiwick, but I need your opinion, as an admin, on some issues with which I am currently wrestling. First, if you take a look at this exchange you will get an outline of the issues, which all relate to the steampunk subculture, and the band Abney Park in particular. At what point does it become an issue of conflict-of-interest for a user to say, or imply, that they are editing on behalf of the subject of an article, which seems to be implied in this exchange from the Robert Brown (musician) talk page. There are issues of relevance, notability, and verifiability implicit here, most particularly in regard to the H.M.S. Ophelia (Abney Park) article, which is so in-universe I am not sure it can be rescued. It seems to me that these are issues which crop up again and again when the subject matter is these small, and rather insular, subcultures in which verifiability is scarce because the larger culture ignores the subject, and the people who edit the articles are people within said subculture. Still, as fascinating as it all is (and I find it almost endlessly so), we have to have standards here, which means getting out the pruning shears. I need some direction, if you do not mind. Thanks. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo RJ; I think your responses in the Fanboi discussion are on the money. You're right in suspecting that the topic area is not within my sphere of competence; I tend to avoid fiction due to the difficulties of doing the material justice without straying into OR, which is why I agree with Emperor that transwiki is often the best route to take with topics of borderline notability.


 * Reading this version of the Robert Brown article, it is not too problematic from a BLP perspective, even though notability seems in doubt and the material is probably best merged with the band article. I'd be inclined to kill the "fictional backstory" from the Abney Park (band) article; at this level of notability and article length, what I'd really be looking for as a reader is a concise overview of their origins, membership history, record releases and breakthrough successes. A single ex link to an extensive treatment of the backstory should suffice. I'm with you on the COI aspect to.


 * Although we ought to try not to alienate new contributors, some people are interested in being involved in the project in a way that can never be reconciled with the needs of the encyclopaedia. The way forward I think is to politely but forcefully resist the addition of anything that is not sourced to mainstream secondary reliable sources.  Skomorokh   14:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the new contributor was enthusiastic, well-intended, largely ignorant of policy, and single-minded, all of which taken together can make for an awful editor. I refer to him in the past tense because the contretemps seem to have had the effect of driving him away.  His article about the airship was deleted, at his request, and he has otherwise been overwhelmed by his back-and-forth with the other involved editor.  I do not think this had to be the outcome, but it is the state of things.  As I say, when it comes to articles on these very small and insular subcultures, the contributors, in the main, tend to be involved parties and, hence, not very neutral.  Alas! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  01:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're right. An unfortunate side-effect of the drive to maintain encyclopaedic standards at all times.  Skomorokh   21:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mystery train at GAN
If nobody steps up to review your Mystery Train (film) article by December 28 when my Christmas holiday roadtrip ends, I'll jump in. A trade of reviews is a fair price, I agree. I have a bunch of 'em in queue, so pick one, any one, every one's a winner...! Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very generous of you Binksternet, I really appreciate it! I'll try to jump in on one of yours before the new year :) Mahalo,  Skomorokh   14:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beatcha to it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh... you sure did! I'll have to see if there are any of Sko's sloppy seconds when I get back from my holiday travels. ;^)
 * Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, I only listed it when I did because I expected it to lie there untouched for months given the backlog! Thanks greatly Cas for stepping up<small<; I feel guilty at not even having written a proper lead yet. Binksternet, I'll still try to get to one of yours before the year is out. Skomorokh  06:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job
Thank you for all your help with the ArbCom election. You really did a good job helping facilitate what appears to be a successful election. Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you Cla. I am glad we manage to pull everything off on time and without too much involvement of the Cabal in the end. I think the vote has elected a well-intentioned and conscientious bunch but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still somewhat depressed you aren't among them. Stay vigilant,  Skomorokh   14:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
I want to apologise to those of you who have watched this page in the hopes of getting a satisfactory response on an issue involving me recently. The past few months I have been slow to respond, and unnecessarily irritable and defensive when doing so. This is due almost entirely to offline developments. It's not becoming of the standards I hold other experienced editors, especially administrators, to, and I am sincere in intending to either clean up my act or reduce my participation in editing areas that lead to dysfunction.Sincerely,  Skomorokh   14:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping
I've emailed you. Tony  (talk)  11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony, I have not had Wikipedia as a priority over the last week or so for seasonal reasons. I hope to catch up today.  Skomorokh   06:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Right!
I forgot about that nickname Sorry for messing with your humor, joker. Jehochman Make my day 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)