User talk:Skomorokh/〦

Nice work on the code of conduct. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you for proposing it.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia.--Zink Dawg -- 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate userfication of recently deleted Psotnic. Thanks! --Mokhov (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Mokhov, good luck with it.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bug, known, fixed, regressed, worked around and logged. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On October 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tsuyako Kitashima, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been too long, DYKAdminBot old friend.  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you could not move the article because of "no consensus." This is a sincere inquiry, not a complaint: I still do not understand when we can say "we have consensus." I have read WP:WHATISCONSENSUS through many times, along with other Wiki articles on moves and consensus. For my learning, please compare for me the Talk sections on move/rename St Peter v Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover (now renamed to delete the slash and Fundamentalist Takeover). It seems to me the Wiki policy on honorifics in article titles, viz. "Saints," is quite clear. Unless it changed recently, all the other 12 Apostles have been renamed except St Peter. I will greatly appreciate your help in understanding and learning. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to explain my decision. In closing the discussion as an administrator, it was not my job to see what the best argument was and move the article according to my own opinion, but rather to figure out whether or not there was consensus among the discussing editors to move the article. This is different from the Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover discussion, as that took a very different form and did not involve a closing administrator, so a comparison would be inapt.

Very crudely, consensus on Wikipedia is determined by the number of editors in favour versus those opposed, weighted by strength of argument. So the first question I faced in trying to close discussion was "is there broad agreement to move this article?". There was not; no clear majority of editors in favour of the move. So the only way there could be rough consensus to move if the supporting editors had significantly stronger arguments than the opposers (strength of argument here meaning based on established conventions, not necessarily whether or not I agree with them). I determined that they did not: the basic arguments on either side—consistency across articles for the supporters, and most commonly-known name for the opposers—both are strong norms with significant traditional support behind them. So there was no clear consensus either way. I hope this clarifies the close.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, Skomorokh. Thank you for taking the time/effort to respond so thoroughly. In appreciation, Afaprof01 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please feel free to ask if there's anything else I can help you with.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You closed a discussion of a requested move for the article on the so-called 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. After a week you claimed no consensus though there were 4 votes in favor and 3 against. Please explain and/or reverse your decision.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what is your concern exactly?  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4-3 is a majority vote in favor of the move, but you concluded no consensus. This is puzzling to me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not not a democracy. Editorial matters are not decided by majority vote, but by consensus of interested editors.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Is there any reason why I shouldn't just make the move myself?--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it does not have consensus.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia isn't a democracy, so the lack of consensus between the 4 or 5 editors who chose to comment can hardly land us in stalemate. I don't understand why lack of consensus favors the current title. --Heyitspeter (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a valid philosophical difference here; see meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies#Statusquoism. However, on the English Wikipedia, when differences arise over a proposed change to the status quo, a lack of consensus results in the change not being made. So, for instance, an article nominated for deletion over which no consensus arises is preserved in its original state—kept—while an editor requesting to be made an administrator will not be if there is no consensus that the request should be granted. That said, this is a descriptive rather than prescriptive norm, and if you think that the move discussion was inadequate and have an idea of how to rectify that, you have my express consent as closing administrator to reopen it . Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to send me a note re: Love in the Afternoon. It's nice to know someone is reading my contributions to Wikipedia! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it! I watch a lot of these old film articles and it's very rare to see someone editing rigourously on them. Well done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we've settled that. I failed to notice part of his edit, kind of embarrassing... Zazaban (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All's cool.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the challenge. Lets hope there are a few who come in in a week unscathed. ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to contribute; it's a good idea. I have another going now that's been handled reasonably well.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting to the requested edits so quickly. However, when I looked at the results it appearance is completely different. Please look at the banner, I'm sure you will be able to see the problem. I tested it in my sandbox and it looked fine. I think it would be best to pull the change out and get another look at the reason why the edit did not go well.Pknkly (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Check it now; I think it was missing a character.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at it. Looks ok now. Thanks againPknkly (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; sorry for screwing it up first time around.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skomorokh. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've asked if the log entry can be removed/altered somehow. Verbal chat 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Verbal.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you reverted an edit I made to the article for Ayn Rand. You posted your thoughts on my talk page, to which I responded. You indicate that "If I have started a conversation on you talkpage, I would prefer to keep it there." I respected these wishes, but, despite the pass of several days (which have seen activity on your account), I have received no response on either the talk page for Ayn Rand or on my own talk page. I request that you respond to what I have said on either my talk page or the Talk:Ayn Rand page. Thank you. JEN9841 (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note JEN, I'll reply when I get a chance to look at it again (in general, don't by any means feel bound to wait for my input if it's not forthcoming).  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You restored File:Sopwith Cuckoo.jpg a few days back

13:37, 2 October 2009 Skomorokh  restored "File:Sopwith Cuckoo.jpg" on the main page

Is this use over? It seems as if the picture was not protected, which I assume was the purpose in restoring for use on main page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, it is no longer needed. I believe it was cascade-protected during the relevant period. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you are moving deleted articles to userspace - can you no-wiki or remove article space categories when you do so? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on the current state of play with regards to sandboxes and categorisation; I recall being yelled at for removing categories in the past...  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something fairly fundamental has changed, article categories should never be live in user-space because it points readers to versions of articles or simply unsuitable articles that are not under the control of the community. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the argument that it encourages editors to collaborate on bringing sandboxed content up to scratch. Is there a policy you have in mind or is this a personal request?  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADCATS. I'm surprised as an Admin you aren't aware of this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a guideline that is inconsistently applied, notably in the case of stub templates. We're working out best practices at REFUND, and a standard approach to categorisation will definitely be on the agenda. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron is right here, mainspace cats should typically contain only mainspace content. –xeno^talk 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've listed the IAF article for deletion here [1] I've noticed that you played a part in discussion at this page and would like your input. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional links to the announcement - I must admit I haven't been done serious "writing" for a long time, and had totally forgot about them! =P - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just felt sorry for the poor new editors coming across something like "1RR" while trying to understand arbitration...  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pointless to have a collapsed soundtrack list (not a subsection). We had discussed this on the talk page. If you would like to have more examples of pages that have a collapsed soundtrack, I can give you some. However, the collapsed one on this page was not even a soundtrack, but additional songs in the movie. I don't believe this is particularly relevant and, as per the discussion page, soundtrack listings shouldn't even be on the page at all. So, having the listing collapsed was the solution until someone was going to take the time to separate it out into a new page. Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Skomorokh!

It's been a while since I've talked to you. What are your thoughts on the suggestions for the Halliburton's list of historical events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halliburton#Proposal:_on_what_to_do_with_the_list_of_historical_events?

Does it come close to how we should comply to the guidelines?

Your feedback and help is always greatly appreciated!

Sorry, I've disappeared a bit - took some time off and got a new puppy :)

Hope all is well with you.

Vana2009 (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cordyceps2009 (talk · contribs)
• List of libertarian organizations (AfD discussion)

I have my suspicions that this is more about playing some silly game between "good hand"/"bad hand" accounts than genuinely improving the encyclopaedia. Bank fee (AfD discussion) is obviously duplicating bank charge, for example. See User talk:Nishkid64#Cordyceps2009 for more. Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It wouldn't be the first time. History of Nathan Larson (politician) (created and demolished by different manifestations of this hydra) is edifying.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need guidance on this perennial issue. There is a failed proposal on this topic at Wikipedia:Notability (news events). We could resurrect and revamp it. There's also an essay at Wikipedia:News articles. Fences&Windows 22:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, F&W and thanks for the message. While I raised the issue, it's not really an area of interest to me, and I would be ill-placed to lead such an initiative. That said, Wikipedia:Notability (news events) looks far too overspecified to be of use; what's needed is something that summarizes the received wisdom on the basic points of the relationship of news stories to an encyclopaedia, the admissability of news reports as reliable (particularly for the purposes of the GNG) and whether or not standard notability guidelines overrule concerns about what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia:News articles looks like a good start here; I think advertising and reworking that and then proposing it as a guideline might be the best route. The current disputes are disruptive and tail-chasing. Some ideas:

• No decisions made about the worthiness of an article while the initial story is still developing. This could take the form of either userfying news articles or postponing AfDs until the end of the first news cycle. There is precedent here in WP:NFF.
• Either enforcing GNG in the context of news or making an explicit caveat in WP:N about notable topics that are unfit for Wikipedia due to WP:NOT concerns.
• Speedy conversion of new news articles either into Wikinews reports or a dedicated News portal feature, with an explanatory soft redirect behind. After a week or so, once the pages have stabilised and the media coverage has died down, well-developed pages can be converted back into regular articles.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  22:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. Wordsmith is reworking WP:EVENT. I'd already been thinking of doing this before the balloon boy debacle, so I'll see if I can make use of your suggestions. Fences&Windows 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Wordsmith will have their work cut out for them trying to get a version of EVENT that will pass with teeth.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Keith Bardwell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Bardwell. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have no problem whatsoever regarding your recreation of the Two Mundos article. The original author had been spamming the site with multiple title variations, copyright violations and at least one sockpuppet account. Your legit contribution is more than welcome and I thank you for the courtesy notice. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! I'll keep watch on the article to prevent any untoward machinations. Joyous editing,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a different computer than normal, so I'm using IE (normally I'm on Firefox). The whitespace was wierd (and I didn't want to move the box too far away), but your version looks way better. For some reason the text kept being covered by the box, so I tabled it which helped. But it looks way better where it is now anyway. Thanks :) . . . .

66.183.69.201 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I wasn't sure because I'm not using IE or Windows and so am in a minority on display issues.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we keeping an article created by a banned user? What is the disincentive to a banned user if the changes are kept?—Kww(talk) 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking the wrong question. This isn't reform school, it's an encyclopaedia; we judge articles based on their effect on our readers, not our editors. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You consider WP:BAN, and it's instruction "If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct" to be unimportant? What is the purpose of the {{db-banned}} CSD category? I put considerable effort into reverting the contributions of banned editors. I find your reluctance to enforce it a bit surprising.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't reform school, it's an encyclopaedia – punishing evildoers is not our business, producing a quality informational resource is. I checked the article and believe it to be a valid contribution to that end. An article meeting a speedy deletion criteria can be deleted; it does not follow that it should. If you want to send the article to AfD or start another community discussion on the matter, that's fine by me and I will abide by the outcome, but I will not engage in rampant MMORPGism at the expense of the encyclopaedia.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some help here would be welcome. The guy doesn't seem very familiar with anarchism, though I could be wrong. I'm not very good at explaining this sort of thing, and you're incredible, so if you could stop by and say something, that would be great. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it later, though these sorts of arguments are rather asinine, and settling them was a major motivation behind WP:ANCITE. Arrivederci,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He intends to go ahead with the edit unless there's a refutation he's satisfied with, and the article honest does not need another edit war. There's been three this week. Zazaban (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K, catching up on watchlist changes for the past day right now, will step in as soon as I get some free time.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the humorously sarcastic write-up on anarcho-sectarianism on the Anarchism talk page. I'd like to suggest you edit the minor "Solidarity" paragraph I wrote some months ago to include some of these sentiments. I had originally written that paragraph with the idea that others would modify it, but that editorial process never materialized, and many seem to have accepted it for what it was. I always wanted to go back and add something more to it on what makes the sectarian arguments orbiting anarchism on Wikipedia so redundant and self-defeating. Hence my original attempt at humor. While I did put a good deal of stress on why anarchists should set aside their differences for the sake of peace, I think your additions can drive the point home further. --Cast (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You placed a WP:CSB alert tag in the Edit Summary of your edit of the Cinema of Nigeria article. Could you please explain in detail what your reasons are for doing that? Thanks. Amsaim (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. The section was titled "Portrayal_in_the_media", but rather than Nigerian media or global media, the section featured only portrayals in American and European media. I am concerned that this represents bias towards Western topics, and retitled the section so as to make it an accurate description of its contents and highlight the need for non-Western material. I hope this clarifies matters for you,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it does. Thanks for the info. Amsaim (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a similar request was made about a month ago and I declined it. The article went through multiple "protection cycle" but the vandalism just keep coming back after the protection wears off. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks for your consideration. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]