User talk:Skomorokh/〥

Hey ho, hello

Hey Skomorokh, thanks for the hello. Lysrae (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Stallman article

"Relevant" material ???? They are personal attacks against a living person on his bio. The "sources" links given for Drepper for example lead to old e-mails where the fellow vents his own personal differences with Stallman. Unless you yourself have something against Stallman and want to use wikipedia to attack his character you do not have any valid reason to keep that kind of remarks on his bio page.--Grandscribe (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Insinuations against my character are not particularly clever deployed in support of your POV. Your reply here is admission that the material in question is verified by the sources cited; very well, thus the onus is on those favouring the removal of the content to put forward the case as to why it is otherwise inappropriate. Throwing around irrelevant acronyms in edit summaries is not any substitute for reasoned argument. I look forward to seeing your perspective on the article talk page. Regards,  Skomorokh  07:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Raymond's blog archive.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, don't get it wrong. I do not attack your character. I think your salon source is very good and much better than what was before.Well done. Have a good day.--Grandscribe (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Taught Me

Given the nom's comments on this one, thought you might want to know......Tim Song (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Tim, I won't be feeding. Cheers,  Skomorokh  08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI question

I've asked for clarification of your comment on ANI. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Will take a look. Cheers,  Skomorokh  08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:DUTY

Hey there Skomorokh, its not a big deal to me or anything, and I realize that you had it first, but don't you agree that it makes more sense for the shortcut WP:DUTY to point to WP:Duty? -- œ^™ 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, OlEnglish. Not particularly. Cheers,  Skomorokh  14:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens

I cleaned up the intro to the article greatly. Removing basically obvious and repeated sentences. Jakeb (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, it would be a good idea to mention this from time to time in your edit summaries (i.e. "removing redundancy" - doesn't take long to type!), or drop a note on the article talkpage. It doesn't take a lot of time, but really helps other editors understand what you're doing, making it more likely that they might help you or at least not revert you. Cheers,  Skomorokh  20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Randroid listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Randroid. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Randroid redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that might be the quickest RfD ever! --RL0919 (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I needed something I could remember that was briefer than "WikiProject Objectivism" when setting up the assessment scheme (no-one was interested in the collaboration at the time so there was no-one to offend). Didn't mind deleting in the slightest, but for future reference it might be better to discuss individual creations that seem uncontroversially deletable mano-a-mano with the author in case they take it as a slight. Cheers,  Skomorokh  06:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What I really should do is not do XfD nominations at bedtime. I didn't even notice who created it until I went to do editor notifications. Anyhow, I completely removed the nomination from the RfD page. Unusual I know, but hopefully kosher since no one else had made any comments on it. --RL0919 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

De nada, sweet dreams. Time for my breakfast...  Skomorokh  06:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorne (Series)

I am requesting your help with TNT’s HawthoRNe Wikipedia page, because one editor of the site refuses to allow changes to the page. His personal hatred and bias towards this television program is obvious, and his control of the content on the page is unlike anything I have ever come across in all my searches on Wikipedia. I have added relevant information that would be of interest to viewers of the program, such as the day of the week and the time the program is airing, as well as the names of the production companies, only to see the information repeatedly taken down. Something as trivial as putting the show’s name in italics (as has been done with other television programs) has been deleted. One other person added a positive review, only to have it blocked. I am hoping that information I have added in the past regarding this television program could be restored, or that I and others be allowed to make changes to the site. One of two areas of contention is that this editor has selectively posted a long list of negative reviews without allowing any balance with positive reviews. Additionally, it would appear on many other television pages that there is no "Critical Reception" section at all, and editing or removing the section on this page is unfairly determined to be "vandalism." The second issue is that this editor has complained of copyright violations with the Plot Summary, even though countless pages for television programs, such as "The Mentalist" (CBS) and "Raising the Bar" (TNT,) and numerous movie pages have taken plot information and cited back to the official sites. Numerous shows with Wikipedia pages use the networks' plot descriptions for the Episode Descriptions, and cite back to them. If there is a standard, then it would apply to all the entertainment sites. If no information or sentences can be cited from official sites or press releases, then at least I and others should be permitted to make the necessary changes to make the page in compliance with Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much for any help with this. Cotto 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. You're going to need to be a lot more specific if I am going to be able to help you;

• What article are you talking about? Hawthorne (Series) is a redlink
• Which account/IP addresses have you been editing it under?
• Who is the editor you refer to?

All I can offer you in general is that a) unfortunately, IP contributions are looked at suspiciously - it helps if you use clear edit summaries or discuss your intentions on the talkpage; b) all articles on works of fiction should have neutral critical reception sections; c) if you and one other editor are warring over a page, it's often helpful to ask for a third opinion; d) there is a difference between citing a source and violating its copyright – it should be ok to reference an official plot summary, but you cannot plagiarize it, though most plot summaries don't really need references; e) all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, that is, supported by reliable sources, so if you have been adding your own interpretations, don't be surprised if they have been removed.

If you link me to the pages/edits/editors in question, I might be able to lend further assistance. Thank you for your dedication to the encyclopaedia.  Skomorokh  21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thank you very much for getting back to me.
• The link to the "HawthoRNe (TV Series)" page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_(TV_series).
• I have edited under "170.170.59.138" on September 1 (as well as other dates using another computer.)
• One editor ("Cirt") has repeatedly taken down information that I had added to the site without any recourse, but when I started to edit his long list of selectively negative reviews, he knew how to immediately get an Administrator to block any edits from the site for several days. Another editor tried to add one of the many positive reviews about the show, but the site was blocked. If any of us are able to add positive reviews, and in the event Cirt takes them down, I would be grateful if I could ask for your help with that section of the page. As for the two sentences of cast, plot, and production descriptions I added to the site, I do not believe they were copyright violations. If I may cite the Wikipedia Copyright page, under "acceptable uses," it mentions that "brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes" (wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content.) I did only use brief quotations, cited from the official site, because they had the best, most complete descriptions about the show, just as many other editors also reference official sites. This one editor has also been able to take down the day of the week, and the time the show airs, even though it might be of interest to viewers looking for that information. He added ratings from a competing show, which may raise questions about whether he is manipulating the page. Wikipedia is such a great resource for information, but this page reads like one person's diatribe. I am asking if you could please restore the revisions of September 1 regarding the cast, plot, and production team. Thank you again for any help. Cotto 10:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikivoices#Let.27s_take_a_breath

Please do not assist Kohs in his harassment campaign against me. The episode is running, and the only reason any problemns have arisen is because Kohs edited the times, then deleted the information about the session when people were beginning to arrive. Please restore the page to the accurate information about the session planned for tonight. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you hoped to gain my help by accusing me of complicity in a harassment campaign, perhaps your theory of mind is lacking. I don't believe we have interacted before, but your reverting of other another contributor's edits as "vandalism" don't make too much of an impression. I do not know of the proper arrangements of the proposed session, so of course I will not be adding such information about it. It would be helpful if you would discuss the issues on the talkpage instead of warring. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem indeed

Thanks for catching my mistake -- after reviewing timestamps of the incident, i think it's pretty obvious that another editor using Huggle and I went after the vandalism at virtually the same time, and I unwittingly reverted his revert. I am usually very good at fixing my mistakes immediately, and I appreciate your catching the one I overlooked. Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, stay vigilant. Cheers,  Skomorokh  20:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pather Panchali

Can I ask you to reconsider your move of Pather Panchali (novel) to Pather Panchali? Out of the 2 articles it is the film that is the more notable so if either article is going to be at the base name it should be the film. Stats for August are novel 692 and film 3927 pageviews. The fact that the film is based on the novel doesn't automatically make the novel the primary topic, see for instance The Godfather or Midnight Cowboy. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm not beholden to the novel as primary topic; the move was motivated purely by the fact that it is unhelpful and unnecessarily confusing for our readers to have a disambiguation page for a title with only two notable uses. If you wish to move the film article to Pather Panchali and return the novel to its former location, that's fine by me. Regards,  Skomorokh  10:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Dunning-Davies

Namaste, Mathsci. This article was deleted following the recent AfD, but was restored for userficiation, then altered and moved back into the mainspace. I was about to delete it under WP:G4 as not overcoming the objections raised in the AfD, but it seems from the article talkpage that other administrators disagree. If you're keen on pursuing this, you might want to discuss the matter with the admins in question, or stick it up for a deletion review or second AfD. Regards,  Skomorokh  14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article appears to have been undeleted with its previous editing history prior to deletion. How could that have happened? Contrary to what you have written, neither Dougweller (the only admin to comment on the talkpage) or I see any appreciable difference. Look at this remark by Dougweller today [1]. There is one sentence added to the lede about being a spokesperson for 2 CERN experiments, which is not particularly notable. However the points made in the deletion review, eg not having been promoted as either a reader or a professor at the University of Hull, have not changed. Headbomb (talk · contribs) has somehow restored the article and its whole editing history as it was before deletion. This is unacceptable. He should have asked for a deletion review. There was consensus at the AfD which he has ignored. His changes to the article are superficial. His statement about the virtual Telesio-Galiei assoiation's connection with cold fusion is something Headbomb has invented himself - it is wholly unsourced on the link given [2] or on the rest of the website [3]. That website is wholly unreliable and does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V in a fairly extreme way.

In summary, Dougweller (the only admin to comment on the article talk page) agrees with my assessment that there has been no significant expansion, contrary to Headbomb's claims, in which case it seems fine to go ahead with the speedy deletion. Feel free to contact Dougweller yourself to clarify things. I don't see any point in having a second AfD. I do find it extraordinary that the article was slyly recreated with minimal alterations and its complete previous editing history intact. It's very hard to see how this was done within the rules of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you understand. The article was deleted following the AfD, by admin Juliancolton. On September 19, admin NuclearWarfare restored and userfied it – as is standard for articles deemed to have potential – whereupon Headbomb altered it and moved it back into the mainspace. Articles deleted through AfD can like all unsalted redlinks be created at any time, though if they are substantially identical to the version deleted through AfD, or otherwise fail to address the reasons why the original article was deleted, they can be speedily deleted under WP:G4. This is what I was going to do until I had a look at the history and talkpage and saw that the deleting administrator, Juliancolton judged the new version to be sufficient to avoid speedy deletion. While I don't share his assessment, I am certainly not going to unilaterally overrule my colleague. There's nothing underhanded going on here – Headbomb perhaps might have gotten broader input before moving their version to the mainspace, but there's nothing that was not "done within the rules of wikipedia" as you put it. I hope this clears things up,  Skomorokh  22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I discovered that the so-called "expansion" by Headbomb resulted from an extremely careless misidentification of John David Davies, a spokesperson for CERN (see the talk page for the official links to the CERN experiments). It was not at all helpful to have added that to the lede and not at all "within wikipedia rules". I've prodded the article once more as it is unchanged from the time of the Afd (apart from a few better sources that I've added). Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy reaction. I didn't even have time to add those links on the talk page ([4] and [5]). BTW I hope you noticed my comments when I supported your RfA - I don't often vote in these :-) Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries; once Headbomb acknowledged the error there was little point in keeping the article save bureaucracy. And yes I remember your support, it was very magnanimous of you considering the previous unpleasantness and put the stop to what could have derailed it – I'm sorry I didn't thank you sooner. Hope all the J D-D business is cleared up now,  Skomorokh  00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hakim Bey page move

I strongly object to this page being moved from Peter Lamborn Wilson to Hakim Bey. As I said on the article talk page, he has at least as many books published as PLW as he does Hakim Bey. Just because one user knows him only as Hakim Bey is no reason for a page move. The statement "He is known exclusively as Hakim Bey" is blatantly false. The page should be moved back until there has been sufficient discussion. Had I been aware of the discussion, I would have taken part and made my objection known. I think the suggestion and the page move were done rather quickly. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position on the matter to be honest.  Skomorokh  21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of personal positions, my friend. This is a simple stating of the facts. Peter Lamborn Wilson took a trip through Asia in the '60s and '70s. It was he who was associated with the academy in Tehran, and it was under that name that he wrote Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy, the book that was so influenced by that trip. He did not begin using the name Hakim Bey 'til later, and does not even use it that much anymore. He has, as I said, published at least as many books as PLW, and he should be credited as such. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It ain't numbers that count compadre, it's renown—and when the dust settles it's TAZ and thus Bey that the majority of readers will know the hombre for. But I'm not the arch-ruler of pagemoves, so it's not me you have to convince. Slap a {{move}} on the talk, make your case, see who bites. Good to see you back in fighting spirit by the way...  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for the advice. And thanks for the last comment. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cronman

I don't hang out at AfD very often, but if the basis for the majority of the keep votes depends on facts that turned out to be bogus, doesn't that mean that they're rendered at least somewhat irrelevant? And that's not even considering the complete lack of support in policy for keeping the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Namaste, Peter. Could you a a little more specific please? Thanks,  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That would have been my impression, too, with WP:Rough consensus and all, but of course we're both biased. Peter's late research in the AfD put most of the initial assumptions in question. Amalthea 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the keep votes considered Cronman's notability to stem from the fact that he commanded major forts, participated in battles and even died in one. None of this turned out to be true according to the article's own references as soon as I looked a bit closer. Even Paul Arblaster, who was among those who argued fiercest to defend the article, changed his vote after I clarified that there was no indication that Cronman even served during wartime. And with the exception of Richard's highly imaginative interpretation of the meaning of how "and" connects to statements, I didn't see any attempt to explain the rather obvious conflicts with WP:N.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will examine this matter later today. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Having re-examined the discussion, I appreciate your perspective. I don't share the conclusion that "Most of the keep votes considered Cronman's notability to stem from the fact that he commanded major forts, participated in battles and even died in one" – many comments noted some of these factors, but the majority certainly did not mention all of them. This is reinforced by the fact that experienced editors still felt that the topic was notable and the article worth retaining after some of the claims had been called into question, and even up to the close of the debate.

The fact that the notability discussion revolved around nebulous claims of significance rather than the more cut-and-dry verifiability of WP:GNG meant that there was significant leeway in the closing of the article; I chose not to delete because on balance, that would not have reflected the consensus (rough or otherwise) of the discussion participants. Usually, I relist such discussions where there is no consensus but the level of debate has been unsatisfactory (i.e. raised questions unanswered, evidence unassessed), but I find that doing so after a mature and complicated debate is counterproductive, and that the best thing to do is to let the dust settle for a while and, if the fundamental conditions are unchanged, initiate a new discussion. So, while I stand by the close, you have my express consent to re-nominate the article for deletion once it has stabilised. Of course, if this is not satisfactory, the matter may be taken to deletion review. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken

"Unlawful sexual intercourse" is the common legal euphemism for statutory rape, see: [6]. While you are correct that a whole variety of sexual intercourse is unlawful in various jurisdictions, this is a legal term of art. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)