User talk:Skomorokh/ज

Peer Review 3 (Odexed)

Thanks for assisting in the improvement for the article Odex's actions against file-sharing, and please accept my apologies for the previous lack of response and edits due to dealing with real-life issues. I'm pleased to let you know that the third PR for the article is now up, and looking forward to hearing feedback from you so that it can be brought over to FAC soon. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Hey: Still working from your GA review. I just tackled an important portion of it: the section on memory retention. It looks like it will be an important part of Carr's forthcoming book, "The Shallows: Mind, Memory and Media in an Age of Instant Information", so I'm glad you pushed me to improve this section. It was definitely, in hindsight, quite pitiful.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Hi Sko: Happy holidays. I've addressed all of your points (I think, they are many and I will of course continue to go back to them; and I thank you for them) and I was wondering if you had further points to make? I hope to open up a peer review request soon enough and I would welcome even further comments from you there. I don't think the article is yet FA material but it is heading there, I think.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello MS, great work on the review so far. I've just added my initial comments on the Themes and motifs section. Let me know if these nitpicking points are helpful; I had been planning to go through the whole article line-by-line in this fashion, then actually look at the arguments and coverage of the topic itself in the article before examining the article against the GA criteria, but if you're looking to move things along quickly it might be best for me to give a GA review soon. It is becoming an excellent candidate for FA :) Skomorokh 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reviews are very helpful. I doubt I will get any better at peer review. For some reason, over 400 people were reading the article last Friday ([1]) so I'm glad I have ironed out some of the errors. I hope you will continue to help me out. I can't have any mistakes in this article or I will be internationally roasted.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Please continue to do the full analysis that you intended. I am looking forward to it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you could be a professional editor if you have not already been one. I shudder to think how this article might have gone if it weren't for your review. I'm still working on the Themes section but should be finished with everything pretty soon. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Want to apologize

Good morning Skomorokh, we had conversations at User:Verbal. I am apologizing for the confusion about the category comment and the way I responded to you which was uncivil, at least by the standards I myself require when I comment to other editors. I do realize that categories cannot be put into articles willy nilly. I misunderstood your comment apparently and thought you were saying that a reference was required on the category in order to insert it into an article. I have commented at Verbal's and apologized there for this confusion also but I want to make sure that you saw this so I am repeating it here. You came off to me as very combative which brought out the bad response from me plus I was tired and have medical problems, but this is no excuse for me to have responded as I did to you. Please except my apology and explanation if you would though of course you don't have to, it would mean a lot to me to know you understand why I said what I did. I would like to also disclose that I corrected the spelling of my name as the spelling of Crohn's is kind of like a pet peeve to me. I hope this was ok to do. I don't usually adjust other editors comments but I was having trouble typing to you with the knowledge that it was still there! ;) Anyways, I hope this clears the air and things are ok now. I take pride in being civil and not being rude to someone or allowing my emotions to take over like it did here. Thank you for listening to my babble and have a Healthy & Happy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not at; like you said I was combative (my intention was to make clear that certain actions were unacceptable rather than start a discussion or seek consensus on something). My choice of wording also might have been better, and I am sorry for misspelling your name. I place more emphasis on straight exchange than on politeness, and thus occasionally invite strong reactions upon myself. Thank you for your considerate note, and I wish you productive and copacetic editing in future. Regards, Skomorokh 14:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick reply. Just so you know, I am not one for the civility patrol since I feel that this is over used and basically civility can be in the eyes of the beholder. I just have myself under a certain behavior because medical problems such as mine can make me extremely grouchy so if I make myself behave a certain way and find that I am not sticking to it then I know that it is time for me to walk away from the computer. :) Happy editing and I hope the next time our paths cross it is under better circumstances.  ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I have made a complaint about your behavior and racist POV pushing here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are nearing, if not yet at 3rr at the Stormfront Article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have made one reversion; of Orangemarlin's original edit. Skomorokh 17:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, I noticed your post on Bali's talk page. Which pronoun do you prefer? If it's a concern you might want to add a note to your user page so editors can follow your preferences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought; it's not a big deal, "they" is fine. Skomorokh 23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Acronyms

RE: Wikipedia:Improving_referencing_efforts#Changing_norms_and_requirements_for_AfD_deletion_nominations

I Refactored your comments, replacing the acronyms with the actual titles. You make some really excellent, strong points, but your points are weakened by the excessive use of acronyms.

Wikipedia:No-no#Alphabet_soup_is_for_lunch

Also your talk page cuts off the last line of text, forcing me to use <br><br> travb (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries about the refactoring; I'll address the talkpage issue shortly. Thanks for the note, Skomorokh 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Skomorokh

Am replying here rather than at the Politics & Eng. Lang. discussion page as I'm sure to go off-topic.

Your Policy link isn't really as clear on that as you suggest - in true Wikipedia style it leaves everything open - which in turn can (and should) lead to consensus. Trouble is it also leads to bullying editors head-strong - and often exclusionist - editors to nipping in there fast and wasting everyone's time, even if common sense tends to prevail. I was caught up in a futile Afd over a prize awarded by a highly notable, internationally respected scientific institution which didn't have any references other than those of the universities whose faculties had been recipients - not accepted as reliable 'cos they were receiving the award, and the highly respected blog of Richard Dawkins. So I tend to play safe, and as you say, try to find other sources which leave no doubt.

That said, I wasn't questioning Prof. Pullum's criteria, just the vehicle used - but now that it comes up, maybe he was jumping on the bandwagon there - he belongs to a generation of people who think it's cool to criticize Orwell, and it really isn't that difficult to find fault with Orwell - or any one else for that matter. Maybe I'm doing the guy an injustice - and if so I apologise. However Orwell's Rule No 6 is pretty clear on the whole thing:

"Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

Sorry for going so far off-topic & using up space on your talk page - please use some of mine. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Ps. Was there really consensus on the inclusion of that particular blog? - am off to read the discussion page... which of course I should have done before. Sigh!

Hello. WP:SPS is pretty clear that there is no blanket prohibition on blogs, and it has consensus globally. Regards, Skomorokh 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for On the Poverty of Student Life

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On the Poverty of Student Life, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass (despite the sacrilegious datelinking!) Skomorokh 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From Bakunin to Lacan

Hi, I have started a GA review on your article, From Bakunin to Lacan and entered some initial comments on Talk:From Bakunin to Lacan/GA1. Basically, it is potentially a very good article, but it needs to be written in language that is understandable to the general reader. Currently it is too full of unexplained jargon and statements that are meaningless to a reader not immersed in the subject matter already. There is not enough written in your own wording, but rather an over reliance on quotes that use the same jargon. I am sure you can expand on the content easily to clarify what you are saying in the article. Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah Mattisse, good to hear from you again, and thanks for taking on the review. I appreciate the fundamental concerns you have with the article; I'll be sure to follow up on the review page, though it might be a few days. Regards, Skomorokh 01:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

The issue you commented on at ANI seems to be resolved. I've removed the report per WP:BEANS.  Sandstein  16:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, well-judged. Skomorokh 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kristin Lindsey

• What I said is that there are no sources that make the subject notable; I mean, I can't even find any mention of her in blogs or on message boards. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand our speedy deletion criteria. If I wrote an article called COMPFUNK2 and wrote "COMPFUNK2 is the most important editor in the history of Wikipedia, and has won seventy-five Nobel Prizes for being awesome", it would not be deletable under WP:A7. Why? If the claim that "COMPFUNK2 is the most important editor in the history of Wikipedia" is true, then COMPFUNK2 is very likely notable, because other Wikipedia editors are already deemed notable for lesser achievements (see Simon Pulsifer and Revo Soekatno). "COMPFUNK2 is the most important editor in the history of Wikipedia" therefore constitutes an assertion of notability, and as such, the article does "indicate why its subject is important or significant". Similarly, the Kristin Lindsey indicates why the subject is important—she is an All-American cheerleader, the best cheerleader in the state of Georgia and "is said to be the Lebron James of womens basketball". Assertion, not proof of notability is enough to avoid A7. Let me be very clear on this: an absence of sources is in no way, shape or form sufficient reason to nominate for A7, for good reason. Does this make sense to you? Skomorokh 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• • It doesn't really seem like you do understand what I'm saying. But I'm the kind of person that assumes good faith, so we can just agree to disagree and move on. :) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps that was presumptive of me; English is not my native language. Perhaps you could explain to me why you think the article failed to indicate the importance of the subject? Skomorokh 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast!

Thanks for fixing my closing errors; I immediately went to fix them, but they were already done by you. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Slow watchlist day :) Skomorokh 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Help"

Thankyou for, er, "helping" me. I've only been editing Wikipedia for 3 years but am still unable to tell the difference between the Help page and another user's project page. God bless you.

I was asking there, as I know a lot of people (i.e. Tony, Lightmouse) watch the page, and that they know a lot about Wiki's format. Also as I don't spend much time exploring the Wikipedia inner workings, I was wondering if there had been some big change that I had not been privy to. Speaking of which, does the text on your talk page align to the right? Ryan4314 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this user and directed them to see the Help Page, as linked in edit summary (about to send note to them as well). Just FYI. WW,QuisCustodio 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Skomorokh 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, talkpages of Wikipedia space pages are for the discussion of improvements to that page. Your comments were not and it is disrespectful to the authors of AdminReview to use that forum to request help in an unrelated area. Regards, Skomorokh 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL at "disrespectful", nice try but I know the guys who work on it, and was one of the first to lend my support to it. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Greetings, SilkTork. Have you any ideas what we should do with this article and its GA Review? It does not look like the author will be returning from his involuntary holiday anytime soon. The article has great potential and I'd like to find someone else to take over the rewrite of it (I might have a conflict of interest in doing so as the reviewer). It would seem a shame to fail it for prose and then abandon it to decay. Thoughts? Skomorokh 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I'll be happy to help out, though it's also OK for you to correct stuff in the article. The article appears to be very close to GA, and may even be a contender for FA without too much work. I'll take a look at it later when I have some time. SilkTork *^YES! 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Skomorokh 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC):That's fantastic, thanks very much. I will probably address the prose issues; perhaps you might want to tackle the technical terminology. I'll review it against the GA criteria then and hopefully any outstanding issues can be resolved. Thanks again! Skomorokh 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai is being allowed to edit the article. I'll check in on it now and again, but hopefully Manhattan should be able to address the issues himself. SilkTork *^YES! 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, seems reasonable. Skomorokh 20:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan ("we need confirmation by a reliable, neutral, third-party source")

There will more than likely be no reliable, neutral, third-party source, because such things are planned entirely on /b/. No self-respectable reliable, neutral, third-party source will be browsing 4chan looking for news stories, so we will have to rely on 4chan itself for such information as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChurroMonster (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right that no acceptable sources for such a claim, but you err in your conclusion. You see, 4chan is a featured article, and must at all times meet the featured article criteria, which include the proviso that "claims are verifiable against reliable sources". This is an encyclopaedia article, not an up-to-the-minute guide to everything that happens on 4chan; if this story is important enough, a reputable source will pick it up in the next few days. Regards, Skomorokh 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No drama for me, thank you. Skomorokh 07:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the help on 4chan. Was planning to get to it... at some point. Real life has a way of being real and lively just when these plans pop up, though. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for writing the article in the first place. That's going to be one motherfucker to watch unprotected on the main page. Skomorokh 07:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it will be! :D It's interesting that neither site does (or should) want this article on the front page - the /b/ panic makes this evident as does the fact that we don't really enjoy vandalism here much. Giggy (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Further cheers

Thanks for the help with MAple Giant.... We're very new to this web thing.... the stage is where we do our thing ;-)Grrrlfriday (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, glad to help out; Wikipedia can be a confusing and hostile place to wander into sometimes. The Maple Giant article looks okay, though if you are aware of any mentions of the company in the mainstream press, it would help ensure the article is not deleted. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Skomorokh 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

is the new article in the oxford times any better? i think there may be one about last 5 years in the times too... [you are too speedy.... how on earth do you do it>!] (Grrrlfriday (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Yup it's a little better, as The Oxford Times looks like a reliable source although it is a local paper with a small circulation; the problem is the article is primarily a review of the play rather than a description of the company itself. I think the article will be safe for a while, but if someone challenges it it might get deleted going on the existing references (a write-up in The Times would help a lot). I attribute my speed to my seventeen fingers and terminal boredom :) Skomorokh 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to get a write up about a theatre company itself - especially in broadsheet = when most people are interested in reading about a production rather than the company itself. The Proof review [Ox Times] does talk about the company somewhat.. 17 fingers..... something's gone wrong ;-) (Grrrlfriday (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

An AfD you will be interested in

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Glocke. AWT (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but why would I be interested in that?! Skomorokh 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Internet vigilantes

Category:Internet vigilantes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Skomorokh, are you currently in favor of no straw poll, or a straw poll with 2 options, 3 options (RFDA only for future admins), or more? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Two, per Ironholds. Cheers, Skomorokh 11:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ottawa Panhandlers' Union

I have nominated Ottawa Panhandlers' Union, 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa Panhandlers' Union. 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. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

National Anarchism Deletion

I made the changes you suggested. You're probably right. This is my first proposed deletion, do I have to vote or is the fact that I proposed it sufficient? --Veganbikepunk (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that could have gotten nasty. Don't worry about the discussion, as your nomination is usually counted as your "vote". Regards, Skomorokh 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)