User talk:Skomorokh/貳

Oops
Oh, I can't use them on my user page, OK, I didn't knew that one, thanks for the advice :)  Vian B r a s i l  (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused apology
I am sorry, but I was rolling back the same sort of vandalism this person (now blocked) had committed on several dozen other editors' talk pages. No censorship was intended! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I would much rather editors would leave comment editorial policy to users themselves. No hard feelings, Skomorokh  07:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feast of the Goat
Thanks for all the help Skomorokh. I think the article is shaping up, but if you have a chance to look it over once more before the deadline we'd really appreciate it. Garethshort (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem Gareth; your best bet is to pick out any concerns on the talkpage you don't feel you have addressed (if any), and either ask for clarification on why they need improving, request advice for improving, or dispute that they are justified concerns at all. Skomorokh  09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

GA hold on Feast of the Goat
Skomorokh, could we get a couple of days extension on the Feast of the Goat GA hold? I've done a copyedit, and I think the editors can get it over the line with a little more work, but I know we're running out of time. If not, no problem; but if so, I think we can improve the article. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and a few comments left on the talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh  09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping on The Feast of the Goat
We've had a go at everything on the list of issues, and if you could take another look and let us know how close we are to GA, that would be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Works of William Gibson - heh, last time I commented on your work on William Gibson, perhaps at some point you should go for a Featured Topic along this series! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I hope to continue to vindicate the community's assessment. Unfortunately our esteemed Mr. Gibson had the temerity to write approx 20 article-worthy works, making a comprehensive featured topic something of a daunting prospect! Skomorokh  22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative society
Weren't we going to dismember this? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, looks that way. How do you propose we go about it? Would an category be a smart move to eliminate that offensive See also section? Should we section-merge content elsewhere before annihilating the article? I wish I could be more forthright on a course of action, but I cannot remember my state of mind when initially proposing this; we are always strangers to our former selves, and vice versa.  Skomorokh  22:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I honestly do not recall that we ever had a specific plan, though we did discuss the matter on your talk page briefly. A category might be the way to go, though I honestly feel that "alternative society" is such a vague term that too many things could be said to fit said category.  This, I think, is the problem with the article to begin with.  So, yes, a course of action... it eludes me.  Man, do I ever agree with this statement: "we are always strangers to our former selves...".  True, true. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I decided to go back and look at our old discussion of this topic, just to refresh my memory. It was not a very specific plan, but better than nothing. I may have a go at it this weekend. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Biographicon
This is in reply to a comment on my User page. I'm just pasting in what I wrote there, verbatim. (By the way, is there a way to mark up this response so that it will trigger a "You have new messages" thing for you? Or do I need to just go write on your User page?  What is the right thing here?)
 * Hi Skomorokh. First, thanks for the great work on that article. It's well done! To answer your question, yes, we prefer "the Biographicon". We encourage biographies of online identities, by the way, so if your alter ego "Skomorokh" has an interesting history you could start a biography for him/you. I'd like to see more of that, I think it could be really interesting and useful, too. Hope to see you over on the Biographicon. Thanks again! -Ethan Herdrick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Message received, thanks Ethan. I will reply on your talkpage to keep things together. Skomorokh  22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FotG query
Hi -- I saw you recently edited The Feast of the Goat; I was wondering if you'd come to any conclusions about it's GA-worthiness or otherwise? It would be good to give the students one more chance to fix anything if there are still issues. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, it needs work. I extended to today (Monday) and it still does not meet GA standards; too much opinion is baldly stated as fact when it should be attributed and qualified; and the adaptations section is far from comprehensive. That said, the article has come on an awful lot in ten days. I will try to fix what I can. Skomorokh 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The professor has been very straightforward about saying he expects articles to be passed or failed as they would be if there was no project or grade involved, so if it needs to be failed, of course that's what should happen.  If you do decide it's close to the line, and can list any more flaws that would be great, of course.  Thanks either way. Mike Christie (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just a note to see if you might be able to take another look at The Feast of the Goat. I reckon it's up to scratch now, but I may be too close to it. If you have comments as to what still needs to be done, if you be great if you were able to detail them on the talk page. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you Lara, the sentiments are mutual. WPTool should not rest until we have a featured topic! Skomorokh  17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template
Sorry. It's one of the faults of Twinkle. You can't tell whether a change has been made between reading and tagging an article. Epbr123 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Network of European Technocrats
Skomorokh.. Isenhand editor also known as Andrew Wallace the NET director has put up what appears to be a complete copy of the previous article that was deleted via the Article for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_of_European_Technocrats Network of European Technocrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats. Is this a candidate for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_delete Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion ? if so could you please do that. This would appear to be another attempt at advertising a website done by the administrator of an organization.

Being I am unfamiliar on protocol procedure I am giving this message to a couple of other editors also for their opinions or actions. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator so I cannot see the deleted version to check if they are the same, but I have tagged the article for speedy deletion so an administrator can check. Thanks for the heads-up, Skomorokh  15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir. skip sievert (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
For clarifying the anarchist section after my edits Larklight (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad to be of help. It is original research of course, but it's marginally better than what was there initially. Best of luck with your continued reforms! Skomorokh  21:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Madness!!

 * I am not worthy, Let Murder, Madness and Mayhem stand as a shining example of free collaboration for years to come. Congratulations! Skomorokh  01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. You're worthy if we say you are!  And thanks to you also for your kind words.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aliza Shvarts
No problem ... it'll be here in a few minutes: User:Skomorokh/Aliza Shvarts. I agree an article about the event would be more appropriate. Neıl ☎  12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All done, and good luck. Neıl ☎  12:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Counter Culture
I was reversing vandalism on the page. If you would like to do that you are welcome to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.57.67 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

McCain FAQ
I noticed that you requested speedy delete for the McCain FAQ. Can you please let me know what the problem is? Thanks. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You had it in the correct namespace, Talk, originally, but recreated in the article namespace. The article namespace is reserved for encyclopedia articles on notable topics; it is not a place for FAQ's. Material discussing the content of a specific Wikipedia article usually belongs on the talkpage of that article - in this case, a subpage of the talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh  19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAQ at the McCain talk page now seems to be empty. But when you click to edit, it's not empty.  Is this all messed up, or is it just my imagination?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, I have to click "show". D'oh.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah AfD
Thanks for your non-explanation of the decision, and your clear thinking. (By the way, it was my understanding that an AfD is not intended as a head count.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was that supposed to hurt my feelings? You may wish to read unanimity, consensus and snowball. Regards, Skomorokh  00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was not intended to hurt your feelings. Its just my dissenting vote on how the process works...in other words, my own sense of frustration. If you think I am wrong and everything on Wikipedia is working perfectly, I suppose you would be justified in bouncing me out for committing a thoughtcrime. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, people disagree on everything. There were only two possible fundamental outcomes - keep the article or delete it. We cannot do both. If we had deleted it per your wishes, I would have had the 22 people who wanted to keep the article being frustrated at not having their way. Not everyone can get what they want, so on Wikipedia we decide things by consensus. I have no opinion on whether this particular article should be kept or deleted, my only role was to assess whether there existed consensus in the deletion discussion. Now you can disagree with my opinion that there was near-unanimous consensus to keep the article, but I think you would be very much mistaken. I don't see how thoughtcrime or perfection have anything to do with this. Regards, Skomorokh  01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you should change anything for my benefit? In fact if the article stays or goes is barely of any interest to me, and I only got involved when someone editing the article asked for an explanation concerning Hebrew. What bothers me about the AfD process (in this particular case) is that a lot of editors said that they want to keep the article, if it was a content fork or not; so, because there was a lot of them it was decided to keep the article. Is there is a reason I should be happy about a decision made on that basis?


 * There is no need to reply. Actually I am sorry about hassling you, because there is nothing that can be accomplished by my pushing this point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I will respond. The tension here seems to be between consensus and what is perceived as good argument. Your dissatisfaction with my decision is conceivably justified on the grounds that I view consensus as a fundamental policy, unlike content fork guidelines; I think AfD's are valid places to test guidelines, so if there is consensus that content forks are not an issue, that is not a terrible outcome. By way of analogy, if people felt that Wikipedia should be more deletionist, and expressed this in an individual AfD (for example arguing for the deletion of an article on a professional soccer player that had no references, in spite of WP:ATHLETE), then I would not have problems closing the debate as delete as long as consensus was clear in their favour. Similarly for those who believe notability is irrelevant, and verifiability should be the test of inclusion. I believe in Wikipedia as an adhocracy. Skomorokh  01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Under the circumstances -- that is since AfD decisions are being made by head count -- would there be any objection to my removing the sentence stating: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy"? This incorrect statement is found here . I would change it to read "AfD decisions are made by a head count". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not being made by a head count, it is made by assessing consensus. There are plenty of arguments that are summarily dismissed by closing administrators - "Don't delete this, I like it", "keep, this doesn't harm anyone", "Article x was deleted, so this should be too". If the person closing the Jehovah AfD had come along, read the discussion and concluded "Nah, I think Malcolm is right, this should go", and went ahead and deleted the article, you would be removing the decision of deleting articles from the community of 7 million users and giving it to an elite cadre of 1,500 or so administrators. That is not how a free encyclopedia is supposed to work; there is not supposed to be a hierarchy. Skomorokh  13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, lets go back to here: Articles for deletion/Jehovah. In your view, which of the editors who voted "keep" best explained why the article was not a content fork? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think User:Edward321 and User:JuJube both made relevant well-stated comments addressing the "content fork" issue, but that is irrelevant, as it is not at all obvious that the best course of action for some article that everyone agrees is a content fork is for it to be deleted. It makes far more sense to stub, rewrite or merge elsewhere the conent of content forks. And we are straying from the point, which is that there was clear consensus in that AfD not to delete, and all else is secondary. Skomorokh  14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will end this conversation here, and bother you no more. I will long remember you last reply for its humor.


 * I will mention, however, that this process started with a question I placed here: . One editor responded to my question by redirecting the Jehovah article . When the redirect was reverted, a member of the Arbitration Committee initiated the RfD we have been discussing. So it may not be my cranky opinion alone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted, others may agree with you, and I commend your attempt to get editor assistance instead of edit-warring; what we are dealing with here is a clear case of rational disagreement among individuals. In a democracy, those are resolved more or less by periodic head counts; on Wikipedia it is by consensus, which does mean that well-stated good faith minority points of view will be overrided under some circumstances. Imagine if the converse was the case and everyone in that AfD agree that the article should be deleted (for well-argued reasons) except for a handful of dissenters who also had well-reasoned arguments: what should we do? I would say delete. Based on you reasoning here, I cannot see that your stated beliefs offer a non-arbitrary way of deciding that case. Anyway, best of luck and thank you for a stimulating discussion. If you ever need any assistance on Talk:Jehovah or elsewhere I would be glad to help. Regards, 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindred spirit
Oh my! Hmm... that is not very helpful, is it? And it looks like there was some fighting going on in the past over that kindred spirit article. A redirect to an obscure Japanese tv show does not seem like the best use of the term. Thoughts? And thanks for the message, it never even occurred to me that this would become complicated. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the only article with a similar name so ceteris paribus there is no point in having, for example, a disambiguation page; the current redirect seems justified. Obviously, it would be preferable to have an article on "kindred spirit" but that is wayyyy outside my area of expertise, do you fancy writing one? Good writing exercise for a professional, I wager! And yeah, it's tempting to revert anon edits to FA articles on sight, but sometimes they pick up things jaded editors do not. Skomorokh 15:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, I won't hear of it! Anons are always wrong!  This is an article of faith for me, and I will not have it challenged.  Seriously, if I can find some sources, I may take a whirl at writing an article on kindred spirit.  The research might be interesting, actually.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Anonymous does not forgive. Anonymous does not forget. Anonymous is devoid of humanity, morality, pity, and mercy.  Skomorokh  15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This "Anonymous" sounds like a scary character. But, I ain't afraid of nothin'. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Copyrighted Pictures
Sorry, my bad. I assumed that if an image was okay for a wiki it would be okay for a userbox. PÆonU (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: History merge
You're welcome. Graham 87 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just history merged Portal talk:Anarchism/Selected image with the old user talk page. Graham 87 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User Hibernian
..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk: as a kind of personal attack blog. Example. ''Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! ''What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic).'' --Hibernian

I know you are not an admin. but I have brought this to the attention of a couple of them and also yourself for some kind of help. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The place to report personal attacks or difficult communication is Wikiquette alerts; this sort of thing should not really be handled by bands of vindicating admins. Regards, Skomorokh  15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. I did what you suggested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Talk:Tomislav_II_of_Croatia.2C_4th_Duke_of_Aosta skip sievert (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)