User talk:Skomorokh/᠒

commons

G'day Sko - dunno if you're a regular commons user - but I nominated that 'suicide girl' pic for deletion here and thought you might like to know... Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sincerely for the heads-up. I'm not a regular commons user, and am unfamiliar with their norms and conventions, but the deletion proposal has the endorsement of this Wikipedia administrator. A free licence is not a licence for being free with people's dignity. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWT

Hi there Skomorokh. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards So Why 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and glad I didn't kill the article. Thanks for playing, Skomorokh, barbarian 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soilassociation

Hi Skomorokh, Sorry to hijack someone else's comment, but I don't even know how to start a new conversation with you, or respond to your line. Help!! Cheers, Jack (soilassociation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soilassociation (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll reply at your place. Skomorokh, barbarian 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Abhinandan mattela

Hey there Skomorokh, and thanks for the notification :). However, I disagree that the CSD I used (CSD G1 ) was inappropriate or incorrect. The page consisted of something along the lines of "fbvfdv" which, as per WP:PN, is nonsense in that it is where "keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed", or "random characters that have no assignable meaning at all". Both of which I think were true in this case. While I don't mind if you choose to assume that the editor was simply testing, I would prefer if you don't say I'm using incorrect CSD when I'm not. However, do keep up your deleting of CSD pages (and your improving of non-csd pages). But, don't forget to check if you are notifying the right person about altered/declined CSDs when using CSDH; ClueBot reverted the removal of a CSD, and made it look like ClueBot added it, so you notified ClueBot here (you may want to move the petrifaction to the original tagger’s talkpage). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, still testing CSDH. Hasta luego, Skomorokh, barbarian 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

When you've a moment, would you mind taking a look at this, and telling this fellow that the course of action he is threatening to take is ill-advised? If I have to put up with a troll who vandalizes articles I edit, I will, as I've done so before, but I'd rather nip it in the bud. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped them the usual chest-thumping note; it's hard to tell when these clownish threats are intended seriously. Ignoring unproductive talkpage comments can often be less inflammatory than removing them, but YMMV. Thanks for the input on the Ireland/Spanish Civil War question by the way; haven't had the energy to follow up on that one. Skomorokh, barbarian 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, and we'll see what happens next. I am not too worried about it, to be honest. As for the Ireland/Spanish Civil War question, you are welcome, and I have not had it on my radar since then. But, I do think it needs to be sorted out. The Irish presence, and the effect of that presence, was not so great to justify the number of articles devoted to the subject. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template?

Are you using a template on user talk pages when you decline a CSD nom? If so, I'm interested in knowing where it is. Thanks! Frank | talk 18:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)WP:CSDH. Tim Song (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Tim says, Frank (thanks Tim). Mixed results so far; if you delete for a different reason, it assumes the tagger was incorrect rather than imperfect. Skomorokh, barbarian 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

After days of research I improved the American Pit Bull Terrier article. Whenever I contribute to this article a user named "HelloAnnyong" revert it. He falsely claims that I used copyrighted material. It wasn't my source but he always revert the text. So I ask a moderator to review the text. Thank you very much.k84m97 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you mean, your additions were removed because HelloAnnyong thought that they violated someone's copyright. The best place to take this up would be the article talkpage, or HelloAnnyong's talk page. Wikipedia does not have moderators, but if you want intervention by an uninvolved outsider, you might try asking for a third opinion. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 18:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Righteous Sock Barnstar
		Awarded to Skomorokh for meritorious socking at WP:Newbie treatment at CSD :) Ϣere SpielChequers 19:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"meritorious socking" is not a phrase one hears every day! Thank you kindly WSC, for this and for having initiated the project in the first instance. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Cfd is broken' Cfd

I've not even begun to read your closure yet, but I'd just like to drop you a thanks for taking this task on - clearly you've spent a good deal of time over it and I'm sure you've left all sides with a good deal to think about. --Xdamr^talk 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, I'd say, especially making sure the talkpage discussion was preserved in a more neutral location. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good closure. Ironically, it was the same exact closure that was overturned at DRV, but this time it pretty clearly represented consensus. VegaDark (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Watson

Dear Skomorokh,

can I have a copy of the latest version of Matthew Watson that you deleted so that I can add to it when more info to establish his notability becomes available. As it would be a shame to have to start again after so much work. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No problem: User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson. Let me know if/once you think it's ready to return to the encyclopaedia. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - was it far off from being acceptable? A worry I have is, and I keep getting into this problem - when I can't find something I think a small article on something would be nice - and then small articles get up for deletion and then a fight to defend them results and then the act of saving it makes the thing bigger than would seem justifed. Does that make sense? Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I understand where you're coming from; you have to pick your battles in these situations. Many topics are simply inappropriate for standalone articles and are best dealt with in a broader context. I think the current draft is quite a bit off answering the question "why does this biography belong in an encyclopaedia?", and the best way to rectify that is to uncover more and better sources. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 10:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I've been thinking of the encyclopedia as something that eventually could cover "everything" even academic and academia in great depth. (Watson is one of the leading UK's leading political economists) but I guess that such things should only be really in a specialist encyclopedia of say politics or economics rather than a general encyclopedia like this one. Having said this we do seem to have a lot of detail on things that I would think in the great scheme of things are less important to include in an encyclopedia than academia might be. Any professional player at small football teams can have a page - but a leading Prof. in a leading university who has made a substantial contribution can't. I need more sources - is the lesson! Anyway thanks and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I hope you don’t mind me butting in on this dialogue which happened to hit a raw nerve.

I have also not heard of Matthew Watson before, but then why would I? I don’t live in Brittain, and apart from the occasional BBC article I do not see a lot of British media. As a Canadian I find Wikipedia to be very US-centric not by intention but simply because of the number of Americans working as editors vs. those from other (English and non-English speaking) countries.

As a Canadian I have always felt as a second-class citizen here at Wikipedia. I received a very rough introduction when I tried to write my first article here in 2007 – I was even accused of being under-age by one of the editors who took it upon herself to “educate me”. My talk page on which I attempted in my ignorance to post my volunteer contact information has been permanently removed and I am unable to re-create it now.

Please do not misunderstand my comment above. I am not criticizing, just hoping to bring one more view to the attention of readers. Sorry for my rant – I will now return to my quiet corner and try to concentrate on contributing to this great project.

I hope Wikipedia finds a better way of encouraging notable individuals from the community to contribute infornmation about themselves.Ottawahitech (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heh

You might want to temporarily revert past my changes of earlier today if you're going to subst that thru. –xeno^talk 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I did it without noticing it was a recent addition. Not sure the REVISIONUSER setup is best tbh. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed better than making people find and replace every {{{1|Example}}}... –xeno^talk 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works; candidates just write {{name of the template|Myname|Statement}} and hey presto. While you're here, can you find out why there are still transclusions of the template on the 2008 pages and subst them? I have tried, and purged the caches, but couldn't get rid of all of them. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, with the way they're doing it this year (input box substs the preload), that's not how it's working (see for yourself). As for your query, probably just needs some null edits to the top pages (

Done). –xeno^talk 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if the preloader loaded {{subst:Arbitration Committee Elections statement|Write your iusername here|Write your statement here}} using the {{{1|Example}}} system, because under the present setup prospective candidates are are confronted with this unintelligible code soup:

===[[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]=== :{{{2}}} *{{admincheck|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} *[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}/Questions for the candidate|Questions for the candidate]] *[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Discuss the candidate]] {{ #ifexpr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}>20091201000000 | *'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Support or Oppose this candidate]]''' | *Voting opens at 00:00 UTC on 1 December 2009. }} [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Candidates 2009]]

It would be good if the category could use {{CURRENTYEAR}} or whatever instead of having to clean up again next year. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The users don't need to worry about the soup, just replacing {{{2}}} with their statement. It's possible, though. The instructions would need updated. –xeno^talk 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this ought only be used by experienced users, a pageful of complex instructions and impenetrable code is needlessly offputting and confusing, given that all the page really needs to do is identify the username and receive the statement. Skomorokh, barbarian 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your way is definitely more elegant... I would say go for it, though it will require another preload page. –xeno^talk 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These type edits seem to have put people who indented/struck their votes back into the support column... –xeno^talk 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification about Jimbo's role

Skomorokh, In an important statement, Jimbo has said "I want my 'appoint' role to be purely ceremonial this time around". That is not entirely consistent with the statement here. Tony (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section as I wrote it was speculative and based on previous years; last year Jimbo had a very significant role in determining seats and term limits. It looks like Privatemusings has removed the reference to Jimbo for this year's notice, leaving the implication that it will be settled by the RfC, which is fine by me. For the record, I'll update Wikipedia:ROJW#Arbitration_Committee with Jimbo's statement. Thanks for the heads-up, Skomorokh, barbarian 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Skomorokh's Day!

User:Skomorokh has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Skomorokh's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Skomorokh!

Peace,
Rlevse
01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, that's very kind of you. Mahalo, Skomorokh, barbarian 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Hi Skomorokh, I have some concerns about this post of yours. We precisely want to avoid a situation where Jimbo chooses the candidates, or the number of candidates, after the election, or where he chooses the lengths of the terms. We had a situation last year where he said a certain number would be picked, and people voted on that basis, but immediately after the election he changed the number. That's the kind of situation no one wants to see a repeat of. What I think the community has said several times is that the number of candidates and terms should be decided in advance, and that the election should be decisive regarding who is appointed (subject to identification to the Foundation, of course). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prolly worth seeing the section a couple up, Slim (with Tony) - I've since tweaked the language, and we seem to be moving forward :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like elections to be run without the need for intervention by the powers-that-be, but the WP:ACE2009 information page is for stating the status quo, not for wishing for ponies or running up a flag and seeing who salutes. The status quo in elections past has been, as you allude, for Jimbo to have a very significant role. The section has been amended to remove mention of him, which is fine by me, but there should be no illusions about where the power lies here. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo did say that he wouldn't exercise those powers, and if he does, there's likely to be significant drama, not to mention an undermined election, so it's worth clarifying, in case there's any doubt. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Tony pointed that out to me in the "Clarification about Jimbo's role" section above, and I think Privatemusings has added wording to the ACE2009 page to the effect that Jimbo's role in the appointment would be ceremonial. Feel free to change anything I've written on the official pages; clarification is welcome, and if a disagreement arises, well there's always the talkpage. Kudos for staying vigilant on ArbCom reform, by the way. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I was just worried that sections of the community were thinking one thing, and Jimbo another. Been there, done that. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Skom. Tony (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clayton (footballer)

Hi, the article above was deleted by you followng a deletion discussion (deleted 8/11/09). This footballer has now palyed in two fully pro games for a fully pro club. Can you please recreate/reinstate the article? For ref see.... http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/carlisle_utd_debut_as_good_as_playing_for_england___adam_clayton_1_634893?referrerPath=home

Many thanks..--Egghead06 (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for picking up on that. Skomorokh, barbarian 12:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Century of humiliation

hi thank u for fixing my article on century of humiliation. i know my english is not good i am sorry. one thing is that japanese people do not remember it only chinese people do perhaps my english makde you think so. thank u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 莲乸 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for correcting that. Thank you for volunteering for Wikipedia! Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 16:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Skomorokh, I feel terrible about "deceiving" you, but am so incredibly impressed with your actions regarding this page. Please accept this as a small token of my appreciation, and thank you for your hard work, here and everywhere else!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kindness to a newbie, which reminded this oldie to approach others with a little more courtesy! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! You certainly had me convinced. Had the account been a few months older and my mood been somewhat grouchier I might have been considerably less courteous about the slant taken in the article, but this is a very worthy topic indeed. Thanks for playing, Skomorokh, barbarian 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mystery Train

You have improved this article 1,000-fold! Fantastic work. One of my favorite films ever, but I knew next to nothing about its production. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting started, I intend on riding this particular carriage all the way to WP:FA – collaboration welcome ;) Skomorokh, barbarian 03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew a damn thing about the movie, other than the sheer joy I get from watching it, I would join in. But, I haven't any doubt of the FA. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing RTV

It's reasonable to undo anything which would not otherwise be acceptable save for RTV. Primarily this refers to deletion of user talk pages. Deletion of userpages or blanking of project-space pages is typically allowed without RTV (i.e. folks who didn't RTV still had RFAs courtesy blanked) so I'd like to leave those things alone. Chutznik (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your reasonableness. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oath Keepers

Hello Skomorokh, I don't have much time left. They're probably on to me by now. Can you assist in making sure that the Oath Keepers article follows that important policy that states that only facts that are verifiable by reliable sources are to be used in articles, and as well to help to maintain a NPOV in the article. Cheers, Falsehoods Aplenty (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know all this, but in case you don't—what Falsehoods Aplenty is referring to is that

User:Varks Spira created Oath Keepers on 2 September 2009, and edited it regularly until he was blocked on 2 November for being a sockpuppet of The Wurdalak.
User:Children will try created an account on 7 November, and edited nothing but Oath Keepers until he was blocked on 13 November for (surprise!) being a sockpuppet of The Wurdalak.
User:Falsehoods Aplenty created an account on 14 November, and has since edited the Oath Keepers article, your talk page, and nothing else.

I assume the statement "I don't have much time left. They're probably on to me by now." refers to the fact that he's a blatantly obvious sock. I'm not sure why he's asking you to fill in for him after he gets blocked, but then, I can't say I understand why someone would be so obvious a sockpuppeteer, either.

If I can offer any help with this mess, just ask. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking Skomorokh to fill in for me after I get blocked. I am simply asking Skomorokh to help uphold policy at the Oath Keepers article. You are a confused little one, Dori Smith, and your edits have been totally incomprehensible and have inserted falsehoods into the Oath Keepers article. And, yes, I am one of the great sockpuppeteers at Wikipedia. Falsehoods Aplenty (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing Falsehoods Aplenty's declaration I felt there was enough evidence for an indef block, and a sufficient reason for semiprotecting Oath Keepers. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pleasant as it is to see fresh faces stop by (hello all), I don't have an interest in American NGOs and so don't intend on contributing to the article. Arrivederci, Skomorokh, barbarian 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]