User talk:Skomorokh/Զ

Your RfA…

I am pleased to inform you that the community has found you to be a suitable candidate for administrator. Unfortunately, with the global economy is such dire straits, we are forced to recycle our standard-issue mop-and-flamethrower™ Mk 2.1, so please ignore the scorch marks and faint smell of bleach. Now that you have some new buttons, may I suggest the following light reading material: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, and then gently shove you in the direction of Category:Administrative backlog? Congratulations. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Beat the 'crat congrats! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it was successful. Have fun at work! Cheers. Plastikspork (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. Syn 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the mines, and good luck... You'll need it. لennavecia 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job. Now you're an admin for life! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• pile-on "congrats" — Ched :  ?  19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it too late for me to Support? ¯\(o_°)/¯ --Cast (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Throw another congratulations on the pile. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Sorry I missed the RfA! Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Long overdue! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add my two cents worth here! This is a most welcome addition to the administrative team. Let me also join the chorus of those asking where you've gotten to! I hope you are well. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've only just noticed this, else I would've voted. Congrats, –xeno^talk 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Namaste

Hola compadres, apologies for my absence and thanks for the confetti and marching band, appreciate it! I came down with a lightning case of unwelcome economic engagement halfway through the Request and, now recovered, am bemused by all these added bells and whistles cluttering the interface. I should probably own up now and reveal that I have no intention of joining any teams, toiling in the admin slough or so much as even looking at any mines – though I am quite enjoying rooting through the lost and found and contemplating ways to be mischievous. In any case, hail and well met, time to get back to work. Mahalo!  Skomorokh  10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you go, Sko?

Have you been assassinated? Perhaps by a cabal from Wikipedia Review? Where did you go, Sko? (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you strategizing about your first 100 days as an administrator? Or was becoming an administrator your end goal and now you have left the project? Where did you go, Sko? (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We're plotting a glorious revolution to overthrow Jimbo and ArbComm! Who's with us! ;) TallNapoleon (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh will not be coming back. As an anarchist the idea of being an administrator at Wikipedia is anti-thetical to his principles. For whatever reasons, Skomorokh has retired. He effectively retired the moment he became an administrator. Unable to function in such a role, you could say. Where did you go, Sko? (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Egoist anarchism

There's a debate on the talk page at egoist anarchism, and since you are one of the article's major contributors, I thought you may want to be involved. Zazaban (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up Z – without making promises I would probably break let me say I'd like to give that page some serious attention soon. Congrats for having the perseverance to see it through the larval stages. Ciao,  Skomorokh  10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Advice

Hello Skomorokh, I just reviewed my first GA article, and was wondering if you can take a look at it, and let me know if I missed some stuff, or if I totally messed up? it's Democratic Left Movement (Lebanon). Thanks, Yazan (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Perhaps third time is the charm? The primary objector to the split has been inactive for three months. Could use some support if there are further objections... Yworo (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy and social views sections have been dispatched and the readable prose is down to a paltry 19k...mission accomplished?  Skomorokh  17:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope so.... if the change sticks for the rest of the week I'd say we are safe. Yworo (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Threat on my talk page

Hello, and welcome back. Would you mind taking a look at Jon the editor's recent messages on my talk page and at Talk:Honky? I am not sure that there is anything worth responding to in his long screeds, but the legal threats are troubling, even if impotent. Looking at his edits, and the peculiar way he addresses people on talk pages, makes me believe this to be yet another sock of 2legit2quit2. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Buonjourno! Not familiar with that particular perp, but it seems that one of my compatriots in the goon squad has seen to it that we won't be hearing any more of their condescending guff, at least not from that account. Cheers,  Skomorokh  17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I lurk on your page, and took care of this - forgot to give notice. Goon squad? I sorta thought of myself as a "flunky". Tan | 39 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure if it was immediately actionable, so thanks for being the greybeard to the rescue! As for the goon squad/flunky debate, authority is resting uneasily and I am trying to make adminship seem somewhat disreputable or edgy. And failing. Mahalo,  Skomorokh 

Do what I do and just piss off everyone you come across. Hope we're cool. Tan | 39 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was not pissed off, just a little exasperated because I thought you (and many others) were being trolled rather successfully (perhaps then I was being meta-trolled?). In any case, I don't hold grudges. Long live the cabal pure and undivided, kumbaya and all that,  Skomorokh  17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thank you both for taking care of this. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About this

Hi, I come from the spanish wikipedia where I am a rollbacker, so I don't know very well the appropriate procedure to propose the deletion of an article in this wikipedia. I have to disagree with you on the implementation of PROF for such article, because that person does not meet any of the criteria listed. I explain now why: The Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal (Lima) (where he teaches) is not considered even in the top 10 of the universities in Peru (you can see here it's at the 48th place), so I can't imagine what relevance has at a global level. The so-called publications aren't in scientific journals peer-rewiewed, but in student journals or other journals available to any person not necessarily academic. And he is not cited for anybody, he is not even well-known in the peruvian academic media. He had not received any award or recognition from any institution (less from a prestigious one). Worse, he hasn't earn any graduate degree in philosophy (not a master not a Ph.D.). Finally, all this reseach comes from my involvement in an unpleasant episode in which I was subjected of harassment by a user that didn't want the article of his friend to be erase (they even share a blog here). Fortunately, a sysop decided to blocked that user for a month and his puppet was expelled. I want to thank in advance for the patience on this matter. Greetings from Peru, --Andreasm just talk to me 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hola, Andreasm. I am sorry to hear about your troubles at es. As for the Víctor Samuel Rivera article, I do not claim that it passes any of our notability guidelines, merely that it makes claims in that direction. All an article has to do to be ineligible for {{db-person}} is to make an assertion of notability – a reason or list of reasons why the individual might be important, and I am satisfied this article does that. That said, if your account of the individual here is a full picture, then the article has a very good chance of being deleted at WP:AFD. If you like, | can nominate it there for you. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can do that nomination, it would be great. Thanks for all your help, --Andreasm just talk to me 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Samuel Rivera, and should be closed by another administrator within seven days. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Foolosophy?

I've seen it stated that you are an editor with some expertise in philosophy, so I thought you might have a look at Pingfatzu (a new article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Alas, whoever stated that was lying through their teeth, and my eyes glazed over trying to read that article. Sources are terribly flimsy and I see deletion in the tea leaves for this one.  Skomorokh  23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You weren't impressed by "The Art of the Pingfatzu have been considered as a mental Martial Art that waives the physical body moving in its techniques of attack and defense. Instead, it is used the projection of the astral body, the "kama rupa" (or "kamarupa") in the Hinduism, and weapons called "kamics" or, on better terms, "kamic-manasics". The astral body projected with their weapons in Pingfatzu is called body of combat."? Such high standards, it's a wonder that anything is allowed through. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed.  Skomorokh  08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your vote

AFD On this AFD.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up LoveMonkey. I've closed the discussion as I think your nomination is mistaken. The term "libertarianism" is, I can assure you from personal experience, by no means a neologism or rarely used to describe the incompatibalist position that agents have free will. It is the most common name for that position in contemporary analytic philosophy in the English-speaking world. Regards,  Skomorokh  08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh thank you for your contribution. I have no problem with the term libertarian. My issue is that the term libertarian (metaphysics) is not common in use anywhere, accept here at wikipedia. It is not a source-able distinction. Libertarian philosophy or traditional libertarian is in use. But the article is not going to get renamed. Now Stanford and or Rutledge do not separate libertarianism into various separate articles or groups by invented terms. A group of editors refuse to allow contributions to articles they rule over unless some academia use their terms. This is not how these things are addressed in academia. This was my point.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again LoveMonkey. This, I think, is a problem with the software Wikipedia is run on, not the article itself. Nobody is claiming that "libertarianism (metaphysics)" is the most commonly-used term for this position, just like no-one is claiming that Madonna (entertainer) is the best-known name for this person. It's just that MediaWiki does not support pages with identical titles, so a disambiguating phrase in brackets is needed. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AH see I have no problem with this what I have a problem with is that people who support free will against determinism sometimes dont get called libertarians. But by definition they are. Again libertarianism is the support of free will against determinism, not just free will support.[1] So N. O. Lossky,s now no longer a libertarian, cause no one literially called him that.. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

re:Jimmy

I responded in the appropriate talk page, please dont take it personally, we are just usernames. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will comment there (nothing personal taken!). Adios,  Skomorokh  07:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was cold, we are humans hiding in username. Good night, Buenas Noches --J.Mundo (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chiaki Morosawa

Thanks for saving that redirect, along with a bunch it got mass-tagged without consultation. Checking contribs around that time, I see you didn't delete any of the other ones that were mass-tagged in such a mass effort of assuming bad faith. It's good to see admins standing up for the little chars and the benefit that disambiguating them does. Tyciol (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I agree that depriving readers of the redirects to the broader topics is harmful and would like to see admins put more consideration into these sorts of pages. Regards,  Skomorokh  09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that WP:MANDARINS redirects to Wikipedia:No vested contributors. In general it is recommended to make clear in the beginning of an article why a redirect leads there. See Wikipedia:Redirects#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F. In this case I found no such explanation, and find it highly puzzeling. Would you care to explain it to me, and perhaps add the explanation to the article someway? Debresser (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a poor general principle (and not at all followed), given that redirects are cheap and introduction section real-estate scarce. As for the semantics, compare vested contributors with Mandarin (bureaucrat). There might be a more appropriate target, but that essay certainly fit. Hope this helps clarify things,  Skomorokh  14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for enlighting at least me personally. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and I don't mean to brush you off. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Subtle appeal of AfD judgement

I don't mean to quibble, but there was a clear consensus to keep Alexander Fiske-Harrison with 9 votes to keep - including the proposer of the AfD - and only 1 to delete. Putting "no consensus to delete" implies something far weaker (and far more likely to lead to a 3rd AfD!) - admittedly some votes were conditional on it being merged with The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna.

The result of that vote was actually also a clear majority consensus with 5 to merge and only 3 to keep (my vote changed) - which is why I did it.

The result of Clive Fiske Harrison was a clear consensus to keep as well with 6 keeps, 2 deletes and 3 merges with a [{Fiske plc]] article (which does not exist, hence I merely increased the Fiske plc section in the article).

Could I ask you to reconsider? The terrible mess in that discussion was the direct result of the actions of the insanely eager axe-man who proposed three articles for AfD on the same page(and tried to 'speedy' one of them too). --Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"keep" cases are a subset of "no consensus to delete" cases; calling something the latter does not rule out its' being the former. Secondly, discussions on Wikipedia are not determined by majority vote, but by strength of argument. I de-merged the play because AfDs are very poor fora for merge discussions, and multi-article AfDs even more so; if you want to merge it, propose to do so on the talkpage and see how that goes. I'm not sure I understand what you are requesting, given that the outcome of the discussion was the one you favoured (no articles deleted). My understanding of English is not optimal, could you clarify? Regards,  Skomorokh  16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Point understood; however, in the case of the two articles Alexander Fiske-Harrison and Clive Fiske Harrison I was asking that it be written on the page that the consensus was keep. This is for the simple reason that otherwise it is very likely another pro-delete person will simply stick them in AfD again very soon and waste everyones' time whilst saying: "the consensus was not keep, but merely not delete now." CFH article had only 2 deletes in 8 votes and AFH only 1 in 10. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Munci

Hi Skom, User:Munci's talk page appears to be bugged. Could you take a look at it if you get a moment? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh, fixed now. Weird. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yo TN, my admin x-ray goggles reveal no deleted revisions or anything else of interest. Could be obstinate. Cheers,  Skomorokh  12:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthropocene extinction event

Thank you for the AfD close and cautioning Poleargo. Just wanted to let you know that I didn't disappear after the AfD. I will be working on the article on Notepad, as he insists on turning it into a redirect every time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, sorry to see the post-AfD edit-war, but it's out of my hands now.  Skomorokh  15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Still cleaning up the patriarchy articles

Believe it or not, I'm still working on cleaning up the mess of the patriarchy articles. There's been a standing merger discussion at Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology)#Merger since 2007. Another editor saw that the discussion was stale and removed the notice. Since no objections had been raised in the merger discussion, I decided to be bold and completed the merger, only to be reverted by the same editor. Rather than edit warring about it, I would like to get the issue resolved definitively. If you have any interest in the topic, please weigh in at Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology)#Merger. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Link update: Talk:Patriarchy_(anthropology)#New merger discussion. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable this has yet to be resolved. Will pitch in, cheers.  Skomorokh  15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it policy or whim?

OK lets see if your position against my AFD for the libertarianism ariticle was genuine or just hairsplit and technicality to win your side. The very same argument I made against keeping the article is now being made by an administrator on the antitheism article. So please no excuses. Please either it is as you say or it aint. Let see some uniformity in policy.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, LoveMonkey. I suppose the question here is the relationship between names and referents – my position is the same. I would argue that the name "antitheism" refers to a particular phenomenon, and that the article antitheism should include all appropriate content about that phenomenon, even when it is not being referred to by the name "antitheism". So I do not agree with those seeking to remove all content which does not explicitly pertain to "antitheism". Regards,  Skomorokh  16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Hey can I get you to at least kinda outline this argument of ambigious on the article talkpage.. Pretty pretty pretty please with money on top. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Anthony Jay

No amount of "under construction" will get this chap to notability. He has yet to release an album and has no other qualification under Wikipedia:Notability (music). How do you think under construction changes the fundamental issue? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way you could possibly know that "No amount of "under construction" will get this chap to notability". Editors contributing to non-problematic (in the sense of spam/attack pages and so on) deserve our good faith and consideration while they mold articles in the form they intend them to be. The worst case scenario leaving the article extant is that the topic turns out not to be notable, and is deleted in a few weeks' time; the worst case scenario in the case of deletion is losing potential quality content and contributors. You're of course welcome to send the article immediately to AfD, but I think this would be an inconsiderate course of action. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WP:PROD on Inter school quiz competition2006

Is Inter school quiz competition2006 even a notable article? It seems like someone wrote it about themselves, as well as it contains a lot of OR. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 17:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Warrior. It does not look like anyone has removed TallNapoleon's PROD[2]. I am not inclined to either. I think you may have mistakenly nominated it for speedy deletion as a test page here, which I declined. I don't intend on taking any further action on the page at this point. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Globcal International

Thank you, I had never known how to create the page in such a way until it is finished, I tried to use the sandbox but did not understand how it worked. I do not know how to respond from my page to you is there a trick? An "F" button or something? I will find out, I see and I am adding a bunch of tools. Anyway thanks again I am trying to be a good editor and do substantial stuff that is original when I can can. Thank you so much, do you know where I can find a mentor editor , is there a classified or a badge I can search or do I just need to get lucky? Thanks Sonia Ingenosa (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Photos

Thanks Skomorokh! Yeah, I took most of them myself. I'm just starting off as a band photographer and I've been looking around for ways to get my work out there. I believe very strongly in the Creative Commmons licensing (and since I'm on wikipedia all the time anyway) I thought I would stop by and offer some of my photographs.

Thanks for the feedback, it means a lot to me :)

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would die a happy girl if I got to take photos of Them Crooked Vultures. My God, Josh Homme, Dave Grohl AND John Paul Jones. That is one epic line up right there.

SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)