User talk:Skomorokh

Have you retired?

Hey Skomorokh, where'd you go? Are you officially retired now? Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yo Kaldari, I had been detained with meatspace projects, hopefully returned for a sustained stretch now. All is well? Congratulations on your appointment by the way. Skomorokh 12:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mongoliad DYK entry

Sorry to bother you again, but this entry is still not quite ready. Basically, I'd like to see 1-2 extra inline refs added in the text (see my comments at T:TDYK). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, have commented; multiple successive citations to the same source would not add value. Regards, Skomorokh 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Mongoliad

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in the saddle, aw yeah. Skomorokh 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Make your day

Uh, did you want me to delete that page or something? (Or am I just not getting the joke as usual?) —fetch·comms 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Routine hazing as part of new admin school, trying to see if you could entice you into deleting a submission you had declined. Good work corporal, you passed. I'm sure the next seven tests of strength will go well, if you follow the Path. Skomorokh 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Thanks for the swift revert of the vandal edit on my talk page. --Soman (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yo, no worries, thanks for writing Under röd flagg, which is why I was watching :) Skomorokh 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a quite interesting piece to write (although largely based upon a single reference). I would like to write something on Proletären also, which is the periodical Bergegren moved on to, but my google searches came up with nothing at all. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Falsity tax

In case you are interested Truth in numbers. I argue that there is no inherent social mechanism that favours truth over falsity. To do this, you need a falsity tax, as it were. Interested in what the libertarian take on this would be. 109.154.101.3 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting on the Arb Com noticeboard

Xeno has sorted out the formatting so that I could see what you wanted to change; from the diffs it looked like huge chunks had been copyedited. If you had just put "capitalising Arbitration Committee" in your edit summary rather that c/e it might have helped... Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a result of the (sometimes wonky) diff handler; just be sure not to change minor elements like spacing and whitespace around =headers=, as it will cause the diff to look like a complete re-write as opposed to the change of a couple letters. –xeno^talk 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Kisses, Skomorokh 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was a blasé choice of edit summary for an arena of such sensitivity. A word to the wise in the clerking line of work though: read before you revert. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonny Hicks

Hi, thanks for your assistance at Bonny Hicks. I appreciate it very much and it made the article better. If in your view it is worthy of Good Article status, you may now declare it so and it can become so. Newenehpets (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It requires a review first, which I will post in the coming days and you will have time to respond. We should be done within the week I hope. Skomorokh 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dive bar

It looks like a straightforward dicdef to me, though you may be right and there is potential to build it up into some kind of article. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive bar. SilkTork *^YES! 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reading

I don't think there was really any other way to close the BLPPROD discussion, but thanks for taking the time to read through all that craziness. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry nothing more came of it, but that is how these things tend to go sometimes. Skomorokh 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Query about your comment on the Arbitration policy draft

Hi Skomorokh—The "final decision-maker" point: I must say, the difference between the third draft and FT2's suggestion is very subtle: "which the community has not resolved" versus "which the community has otherwise failed to resolve". It eludes me! Doesn't the current wording do it more neatly? Tony (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hullo Tony. I don't think the difference is slight – FT2's version requires the community to have tried and failed, the current draft version means ArbCom can jump into any active dispute (i.e. even if community dispute resolution is in process or has not even been tried). Skomorokh 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Don't really like "otherwise". How would you feel about "which the community has tried and failed to resolve"? or even "which the community has been unable to resolve"? Tony (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything along those lines is fine by me (I'll leave the precise wording to the experts!). Skomorokh 12:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, I think there was a misunderstanding between us in IRC just now. The reason why I trouted you was because of your un-helpfulness. We're in the help channel to help people. And even if it means going the extra mile, so be it. You don't just dump a link to someone and ask him to dig through it for a template. If you're busy, ask the person to hold on a moment/sec. They don't mind waiting a minute or 2 if you can help them. If you still can't handle it, ask another helper to help you. If you don't ask, we won't know that you need help. I saw you helping them, but refrained from coming into the conversation for courtesy sake. Just to clear up the air, Bejinhan talks 14:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see this sort of line here after our discussion earlier. The help channel is a busy environment and resources do not always match requirements; triage is a requisite. The channel does not demand all of your attention all of the time, but it is unacceptable to stand by when another helper is trying to assist multiple users simultaneously (particularly users whose problem arises from one of your on-wiki reviews), and then throw around childish insults publicly – a basic standard of professionalism is expected, and your conduct did not meet it, to put it lightly. I appreciate your good intentions, and your attempt to clear the air, but unless you can conform yourself to appropriate standards of behaviour in the help channel, you may have to find other areas in which to contribute. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh, to tell the truth, I've very disappointed in your attitude. I have handled multiple user simultaneously before. I could manage it. Tough, yes, but I did it. How would I know that you couldn't? The user only mentioned my review after I trouted you(the channel logs will verify it). You can't blame me for it seeing that I did not know what he was talking about(and neither did you because you asked him to paste the link). How would I know his request is related to me? Communication, politeness, and helpfulness is very important in the channel. I don't know why you're talking about my behavior and about me throwing "childish insults publicly". You left the channel because you were offended. You did not give me a chance to reply to you. Our conversation in the channel was private. The only thing public was when I trouted you. I hate leaving things half-hanging, hence, my post here. Bejinhan talks 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay to add unsourced info and violate WP:V on article pages?

Skomorokh, I must admit I am a bit confused: [1] [2] [3] = this is not just a "content dispute", these are clearly edits that violate WP:V. You are saying that is perfectly okay for a user to do on Wikipedia? Add unsourced info and material violating WP:V to article pages? -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were, I'm sure I would have said so. Not all editors work at the same pace, and KD's comment seem to me to make clear that he had no intention of leaving the information in question unverified. So yes, it does boil down to a difference over the appropriateness of the claim and the reference, or at a stretch a microcosm of eventualism vs. immediatism – in other words, a standard issue content dispute. Regards, Skomorokh 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So the above three edits in question are perfectly acceptable and the type of behavior to be encouraged? It is just confusing to me, that we would want to encourage editors to add unsourced info and info violating WP:V to encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how you could have concluded that from what I wrote. Skomorokh 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is what he did to the article page. Not once, but multiple times, after requests to stop doing so and remove the material pending appropriate verification to WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clear at this point that KD had taken the information from a source he considered reliable, and intended to cite that source in due time had the pace of reversion – was acting in good faith in other words. It goes without saying that its preferable to cite your sources as you go, but it would stretch credibility to consider not doing so a hanging offence. I don't think there are any further issues of interest here other than those raised at WT:V. Skomorokh 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Skomorokh 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Skomorokh. I feel bound to point out, although it should be obvious, that two of the three edits Cirt cites include a citation to a perfectly plausible primary source for uncontroversial information, the business's own website, which I did have before I started editing. Cirt intervened within three minutes of me making the edit, and to my surprise I found that the source only referred to the chef by his nickname "Chuck" - the Bio section was still under construction. The other edit Cirt cites was to the introduction, where one would not expect to find the reference. I could only have avoided Cirt's wrath in that regard if I had worked through the article backwards. I found an alternative source twenty minutes later, and would have found it quicker if I hadn't had AN/I to deal with. Sorry to intervene here, but such assertions, if uncorrected, can come back to haunt.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) admits here to citing a source before even checking what the website said at all. Unbelievable. -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what I said, Cirt, but let's not mess up an uninvolved editor's talk page. You know where to find me.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_amendment, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you enacted the original sanction. Note also that I logged the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as you may have inadvertantly missed this at the time of enacting the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, that's the first I've heard of that page. Best, Skomorokh 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Japanese syndicalism

I created National Libertarian Federation of Trade Unions, do you know any additional sources for expanding the article? --Soman (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look but I'm afraid Kanji is outside my comfort zone, the books I have don't mention it directly and title of the article is a Googlebomb. This bibliography of Japanese anarchism might be of use; I see you've found the Crump already. Skomorokh 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton

Thanks for picking that up this morning, but I somehow think this is going to be a long term problem - see here. Oh, and I realise I am again snitching, but this sort of behaviour is terribly disruptive. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks that way alright. You couldn't pay me to wade into British isles but I'll keep an eye on the bio as best I can. Skomorokh 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit of a nightmare ...--Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's really getting absurdly time wasting at WP:BISE - he is repeatedly re-inserting offensive material. Can I ask you to refer this to an admin who is willing to take a look at it please? Be grateful for any help. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't participate in this area but I have every confidence in the active admins Black Kite (talk · contribs) and TFOWR (talk · contribs) to mete out fair justice. If you're having trouble that isn't being looked at, a short post to WP:AIN briefly explaining the disruption and asking for one or two uninvolved admins to take a look should have the desired result. Skomorokh 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe their concern is that - in theory... - Black Kite and myself are away this week. In practice I suspect I will need to check up periodically ;-) Other than that: guys, don't hassle Skomorokh ;-) I'd echo the ANI advice - the editor in question is subject to a topic ban: ANI should find it straightforward deciding whether that ban has been breached. Other issues: ANI as well, though it may get messy. Got to board flight now, will check in later if I can. TFOWR's left sock 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, TFOWR, safe journey. Skomorokh 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple question, was Dave Snowden or was he not born in Ongar Essex?

Simple question, was Dave Snowden born in Ongar, Essex or not?

I don't see the controversy and made the all the categories to work.

If it is recording a fact---which it is---it is hardly "manipulating". That comes across as heavily loaded and pejorative.

Did he point it out to you? --Triton Rocker (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone and I strongly suggest you find another topic area of interest. Skomorokh 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, mate, but I have no idea what unwritten rule I am breaking here. I have not changed it back---but the guy was born in Essex. That is the fact.

It is a very strange world where this same individual can go about reverting my perfectly good, well referenced and non-controversial edits---time and time again---without punishment but not have a simple fact on his own topic.

I'd show you the facts but I get the feeling you are already not interested.--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The unwritten rule is: don't go editing biographies of editors you are in dispute with, particularly to re-insert contested material without a source. End of story. Skomorokh 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Which would only apply to contestable material---and that edit was not. Serious. Step back from it and tell me what is factually wrong with it. Nothing. The majorities of biographies have just such links. I saw it and fixed it. Am really I "in dispute", or am I being pillorised by editors (Snowded (talk · contribs), HighKing (talk · contribs) etc) who have been edit warring over a petty naming dispute for a far more longer time than I have been editing on the Wikipedia?

I am serious my friend, what I am discovering here is that there are all sorts of unwritten codes and alliances going on here. People who are grinding their axe over their chosen issue have not a care in the world how their actions erode the goodwill of others. Within that, snitching and deliberately provoking others reverting other people's work appears to be the norm.

Honestly, am I wrong ... or it is just against some other unwritten rule to point it out? --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Facticity is not the issue – though if it were you could trouble yourself to read the history and talkpage of the article in question and find answers to your question. If you expect goodwill and the benefit of the doubt, 1) stop harassing those who disagree with your edits and 2) find an uncontroversial topic area within which to make productive contributions and show that you are worthy of the respect of others. Given that you're cruising towards an indefinite block I doubt you will take this advice, but on the off chance you are remotely sincere, there lies the path to peace and happiness for all. Skomorokh 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC on bureaucrat removal

Hi. I've started the RfC on bureaucrat removal here. Thanks again for expressing your interest. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up. Skomorokh 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship Ephemera

That's a wicked cool portrait you chose there! I don't think I had ever looked at your userpage and so had never seen it before. Makes me want to upload something more stern! Protonk (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers guv', strikes an appropriately schoolmaster's tone for the incoming students I reckon. I think you're already putting most editors to shame with the "I have made physical contact with a female" angle of your current portrait, though I'm sure with the facial hair you could pull of something fearsome in a Rasputin vein. Skomorokh 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah! didn't think of that. I picked that one because it was the most recent picture I had not taken through a laptop camera. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

First, I want to thank you for your interest in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I only have a few minutes. As you noted in your edit summary, the article is currently in rough shape in the Development section, primarily because I have been concentrating on putting in source material. I believe I am mostly done with getting source material for that section although there is a whole list of sources to go through (the ones at the top of the article's talk page, some under the References section on my talk page and the existing sources. I would imagine that some of the material in the Development section will find their way to other sections, e.g. Plot and Gameplay. And I think a thematic organization, rather than a chronological one, will be better for development, e.g. climate model, balancing/playtesting, social engineering. So I would expect to reorganize that section. Finally, there will be a lot cut down. Once again, thank you for your interest. Vyeh (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that all sounds good; whatever is best for the article's long-term development. Excising the dodgy sourcing and getting the rest up to scratch (publishing details for citations etc.) will be a long process but there is the bones of an interesting article there. Skomorokh 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bienvenido

It's good to see you back. Best wishes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Salut! Skomorokh 13:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Been meaning to ask - what happened to your mop? I was quite keen on you getting it, and my brief look at your logs turned up nothing... TFOWR 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Chucked it in for arcane meatworld reasons and hadn't needed it since I returned to editing. May run the gauntlet again though enforcer is not a natural frame of mind personally. Skomorokh 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm finding playing "bad cop" disturbing. OK with obvious vandals, enforcing policy... not so much. I did mention at my RfA that I had no intention of blocking veteran editors for civility "issues", but there seem to be all sorts of areas where folk expect me to wield the mop where I'm not entirely happy doing so. Oh well! Incidentally, I had a feeling that you'd also changed username (I remember learning something about an obscure Russian affinity group from the late 19th century?) Or am I mis-remembering/making it up? TFOWR 13:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Hey, you .!. drive by article improver... Thanks! - RoyBoy 03:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help, sorry if the changes were overly dramatic. Skomorokh 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Courageous class battlecruiser/archive1

From time to time Sandy leaves exasperated comments about SHIPS FACs being hard to parse ... one problem comes when she's not sure whether a reviewer's comments have been addressed to the reviewer's satisfaction. Could you give this a quick look and indicate whether you're happy with Sturmvogel's replies? - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little late, chief. Skomorokh 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take a second look at your deletion decision concerning article: Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

Dear Skomorokh

You deleted the above article that I wrote: "The result was delete as there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)"

I would be grateful if you would take a second look at your decision, and consider undeleting my article. The main concern in the discussion leading to your decision was that the article was about a method, known as the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method (as used for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) that had sprang from this single source (an article I wrote, which I cited in the article and the discussion):

P Hansen & F Ombler (2009), “A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 15, 87-107 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122577495/abstract).

Since deletion, the following 2 other peer-reviewed articles have been published that cite the above article. Both articles are largely based on applying the method (and reporting the results of applying the method). The authors are independent of me.

T Neogi et al. (2010), “The 2010 American College of Rheumatology / European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report”, Arthritis & Rheumatism 62, 2582-91 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.27580/full)

W Taylor & G Laking (2010), “Value for money – recasting the problem in terms of dynamic access prioritisation”, Disability & Rehabilitation 32, 1020-27 (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638281003775535)

I can send you the PDFs for both, if you'd like to see their discussions of how the authors applied the method and their references to the first article above.

In addition, the method is referred to in these 5 conference papers and proceedings (again, the authors are independent of me): A Fitzgerald, B Conner Spady, C De Coster, Ray Naden, GA Hawker T Noseworthy (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing”, abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology 60 Suppl 10, 54; T Nosewothy, C De Coster & R Naden (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore 38, S78; C De Coster & T Noseworthy, “Improving wait times in the referral-consultation process: WCWL priority referral scores”, Taming of the Queue VI: Improving Patient Flow, 6th National Invitational Conference on Wait Time Measurement, Monitoring & Management, Ottawa, 2009; C De Coster, A Fitzgerald & T Noseworthy, “Developing priority-setting referral tools for medical specialities”, Canadian Association for Health Services & Policy Research Conference, Gatineau, 2008; A Fitzgerald, C De Coster, R Naden & T Noseworthy, “Priority-setting for referrals from primary care providers to rheumatologists”, American College of Rheumatology, 2008 Annual Scientific Meeting, San Francisco.

Finally, 1000Minds software, which applies the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method has won or made the finals of these 7 innovation awards: Finalist, Telecommunications Users’ Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) Education Innovation Award 2009; Finalist, Bayer Innovators Award 2008; Winner, Consensus Software Awards 2007 (“The only independently judged Awards for Australian & NZ software, proudly sponsored by Microsoft and IBM”); Winner, Telecommunications Users’ Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) Healthcare Innovation Award 2005; Finalist, Global Entrepolis @ Singapore Award 2005 (with Asian Wall Street Journal’s Asian Innovation Award – 1000Minds was 1 of 6 finalists from 148 entries, 14 countries); Finalist, 2006 New Zealand Health Innovation Awards; Finalist, Westpac Otago Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Innovation Awards 2006.

The result in the Global Entrepolis @ Singapore Award 2005 was written up in the The Asian Wall Street Journal issue of 21 September 2005, available from http://www.1000minds.com/Library/aws2005.htm.

In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest that the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method is notable. Admittedly in some of the sources referred to above, it is not referred to by name; instead it is referred to via the software that implements the method, and/or how the method works and was implemented by the particular user is described (in essence, a shortened version of the Wikipedia article I was hoping to have published). I realise that this may sound self-serving on my part - as I co-invented the method, and also the software implementing it. But that does not change the fact that other people, who are independent of me, are using the method and referring to it. As I said at the start of this message, I would appreciate if you would take a second look at your deletion decision.

Yours sincerely, Paul Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Paul. If what you write above about the coverage of PAPRIKA in the Neogi and Taylor/LAking papers is bourne out, it would seem as if the topic is worthy of inclusion. The decision to delete the article was not really mine however; as an administrator, my job was to determine what the consensus of the editors in the discussion thought should be done with it. So I have asked that the article be restored to a userspace sandbox at User:Paulwizard/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives, and I suggest that you use the new sources to improve it there. Once you think the sandbox has overcome the reason for deletion, come back to me and I will assess it. Is this satisfactory? Skomorokh 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Skomorokh. That's more than satisfactory. I will do exactly as you suggest. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Hello again, Skomorokh, I have improved my article as you suggested. Would you please assess it? Thank you. Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great Paul; the new version looks good to me (although the topic is somewhat outside my area of competence), and I have started a discussion here on restoring the article. You may wish to keep an eye on the discussion and respond to queries raised/misconceptions et cetera. hope this is helpful and sorry for all the bureaucracy, Skomorokh 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Skomorokh. Much appreciated. This is very helpful. In fact, I am very impressed by "all the bureaucracy" as exemplifed by you! Fast and fair ... Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

question relating to recent deletion

Do you happen to know, is there a talk page for discussion by anarchist wikipedians? I looked, but did not find. thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes of course, I should have told you. It's at WT:ATF, the talkpage for the Anarchism Task Force, which you are more than welcome to join :) Feel free to post whatever items of interest about wikipedia+anarchism there. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mirrorshades front cover pic

Aleichem shalom, Skomorokh
I would venture to suggest that the Mirrorshades article may possibly be better illustrated by the first English edition of the book than by its Korean translation's cover.
--Shirt58 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aloha, Shirt58

A most excellent suggestion, go right ahead. Skomorokh 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review

I checked the images of Hotel Chevalier again and added my image review to the FAC discussion. The licenses look fine to me except for one minor quibble, which should take little time to address. Finetooth (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finetooth, you're a star. Mahalo, Skomorokh 01:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A.

As an editor who has recently edited M.I.A. (artist), I am asking you to comment on the "Politics" thread at Talk:M.I.A. (artist). Input in the issue from more users would be nice. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Carl, I assumed this was announcement spam when I saw it first, will take a look in the coming days. Regards, Skomorokh 23:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thank you Skomorokh. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

re What?

O.K. You have removed some content confirmed by her family ("She became interested in acting when her second eldest brother, Trevor Duke Moretz (stage name Trevor Duke), was accepted to the Professional Performing Arts School in New York. Trevor would later become her acting coach and often travels with her during filming."). I know it's unsourced content, but don't remove it. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 16:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person; only claims supported by reliable sources (such as the one you removed about Moretz's siblings) are appropriate. It is absolutely not okay to consider "her family" an appropriate source. Please review the biographies of living persons policy and observe it in your future editing. Skomorokh 16:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the mixup started with a reversal conflict between you and me: you beat me to it, reverting to an earlier version than I did. When I tried to undo my edit as your reversal was correct you beat me to it again. Together it gave off the wrong impression. Jarkeld (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about our edits, but did not understand Gggh's revert at the time. All well now. Thanks for stopping by to clarify, Jarkeld. Skomorokh 23:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

My edits came from PACER (Federal Courts Database, and are verifiable at the link I provided. I replaced the reverted edit along with a link to verify edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.156.211 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I know it's annoying to have your changes reverted when you know you're in the right, so I'd recommend citing your sources first time round in future. Cheers, Skomorokh 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this, it was exactly what I was hoping for. Non–pop culture lists at FLC are always a mixed blessing; we need the diversity in topics, but I'm always wary about a lack of scrutiny, especially WRT content. Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the notification, I would never have come across the page otherwise. Featured processes are generally lacking in content reviews vis-a-vis technicalities, I'd agree. Skomorokh 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Short film

Hi, Skomorokh! Nice job with Hotel Chevalier. Since it is a short film recently promoted to Featured Article status, I invite you to comment on a discussion about using quotation marks instead of italics for short films. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo Erik, thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell bibliography

Please review Let me know if my changes to George Orwell bibliography have met your criticisms (and thanks for airing them.) For what it's worth and if you're interested, I have a long-term goal of getting George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, this bibliography, and Animal Farm up to featured status and Homage to Catalonia up to good. If you ever want to collaborate on those topics, let me know. (You also wrote that this bibliography is "one of the best I have seen"; did you mean on Wikipedia or of Orwell? If you know of any other publications that I've missed or any more comprehensive bibliographies, I would be very interested in finding out more.) Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo Justin, hope to be able to review in the next day or so. Cheers, Skomorokh 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skomorokh, can you revisit this one when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, will post extensive comments later tomorrow (UTC). Skomorokh 12:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a third look? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Signed, sealed and delivered. Regards, Skomorokh 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Borges

Great to see your additions to Jorge Luis Borges. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A miniscule improvement compared to what needs doing, but thanks, Spanglej. Skomorokh 18:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

New encyclopedism

I removed your prod and the prod2. This probably will be controversial, and involves a whole category, which is also up for deletion. Please send it to WP:AfD, if it is not done already. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of PROD is that you don't deprod unless you believe the article ought to be retained; deprodding for being potentially controversial defeats the purpose of the system. Skomorokh 18:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism and Anonymous

I do not know of one right off hand (other than personal experience- but that would go against the "No Original Research" rule, amirite?). I'll start looking for one. On a somewhat unrelated note, I have edited Wikipedia before but I just registered my account. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future.

Regards,

TROLL

No worries, sorry for being a rules nazi. Skomorokh 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's cool. I founds me a good source. Check out the latest revision. One thing though, I'm not good enough at wiki markup to get it to display correctly. Could you kindly fix it for me?

Canvassing Votes Discussion

Namaste Ji, Skomorokh,

On August 19, you moved this discussion to the ANI board:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Canvassing_votes

It is entirely evident that the only editor who feels that Mariordo has engaged in unfair canvassing is his accuser, OSX. Is there a way to officially end this discussion and clear Mariordo's good name? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo, I only moved the thread to the appropriate forum; such conflicts are not my area of interest. Regards, Skomorokh 06:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:New encyclopedism

RE: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 23

What about having something like v: User:KYPark/Encyclopaedism/Timeline here? It is ready to be imported. You are welcome to talk at Talk:New encyclopedism#Timeline. Thanks. --KYPark (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me is that this concept does not seem to have gained a foothold in the scholarly literature [though I would be happy to be contradicted]; this seems all to be interesting yet original research, which is fine for Wikiversity but not for this project. Regards, Skomorokh 06:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 General Questions

Please see here. Tony (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do Tony; expect an email later than tomorrow. Skomorokh 12:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit cleaning up the formatting on that article. I was coming back to check on it myself after doing a set of updates to articles, and voila it was already done! :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, your edit showed up on my watchlist and I peered at the link formatting with an almost archeological curiousity. Cheers for the WEF update – small businesses are a much-neglected corner of the wiki. Skomorokh 14:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New Delhi

Your post got me to looking at a few other Indian city articles, and I find that similar "my city is bigger than yours" edits that have crept in to quite a few of them. Would you be able to look around and check some of them. List of most populous metropolitan areas in India is a good reference point (as is List of most populous cities in India); both are well referenced and the population nos should be right on both - except for one source error in the metro list (Nashik is on the source twice). Hyderabad and Ahmedabad are apparently at war currently (I'll fix those two today), I believe Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore should be ok, but the rest would need a look-in. I normally do a sweep of those around the 30-60 mark on a monthly or so basis as that's where most of these dubious edits come in, but I've been off-wiki for a while and some of these might have been changed unnoticed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a little digging around the census and came to a similar conclusion. Unfortunately, this is way outside my area of competence (I know nothing of India, watch none of the articles, and am practically innumerate). I'd say your best bet would be WP:INDIA. Skomorokh 12:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sons of Kyuss

Yes, very notable band, but there are essentially no sources about this demo album. The only source that I've found that even mentions that the group made a demo under the Sons of Kyuss lineup was an article in Billboard and the article doesn't give a track listing or what the album of the demo even was. A notable demo album would be something like Slipknot's Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., which has plenty of sources about it. RG (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is for me a question of article series (or, the proper distribution of material about the subject across articles), rather than isolated notability; Kyuss is a sufficiently notable topic that we would be remiss in not covering all of their works, and the sparse but fundamental information in the Sons of Kyuss article would not survive in the main Kyuss article, being mostly particulars (personnel, track names, lengths etc.). For a topic with no controversy associated with it, and which is mandated by our duty to comprehensiveness, the primary source suffices, I think. Regards, Skomorokh 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Ann Jackson

We seem to have been reading the same ticket. I've removed the information and started a thread at WP:BLPN#Mary Ann Jackson. Regards,  Sandstein  21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to lock/respond until I'd gotten an idea of where the fault lay, but I probably ought to have removed the claim at first glance. Will comment at BLPN, thanks. Skomorokh 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Temperament images

Howdy. I saw your removal of the emoticon image at Four Temperaments this morning, and wondered if perhaps you have any background in this topic (I don't, just curiosity), and might like to investigate further? The image, in various forms, has been in the article for years, and variants are used in many other language editions, via these files:

• commons:File:Four temperament.PNG
• commons:File:Four temperament b.PNG
• commons:File:Four temperaments.svg
• commons:File:Four temperaments - 2.svg
• commons:File:Five temperaments.png

Possibly, they're derived from these 2 images or similar?

• commons:File:Lavater1.jpg
• commons:File:Alletemp.jpg

or possibly (hopefully) they come from a textbook or similar?

The first of the emoticon images was uploaded in 2006 by User:Noe (now editing as User:Nø) so he might be able to help?

Just a potentially interesting tangent for hunting. That's all I could find. If you don't have time/interest, I'll have a longer try myself, sometime later on. Cheers. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You always lose some subtlety when trying to illustrate complex concepts with simple diagrams, but I think these go a little too far and could be misleading. Alas, I don't have the specific expertise required for depicting the temperaments accurately. Skomorokh 12:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Four Temperaments image. Thanks anyway. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with it, and sorry for being the person who comes armed with a problem without offering a solution (I hate that guy!). Skomorokh 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nono, you're the guy who pointed out that the emperor might be wearing an invisible hat. That guy's fine!

Just for your curiosity (you're a person of many interests), I've been occasionally poking at this for a few years. Mostly as an attempt to educate myself on the historical origins of these topics, so that I can better respond to discussions about astrology (so many hippy/"spiritual" friends!). And also just as someone interested in narratology and reductionism. Feel free to poke at, ignore, or eyeroll. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidance needed

Hi Skomorokh,

Long ago you welcomed me to Wikipedia and said to ask here if I had any questions. Well, I've got one now.

Over at Talk:Morality there has been a very difficult dispute with an extremely tendentious editor, User:Faust, who seems to completely ignore the concept of consensus and continually filibusters and edit-wars against every other editor involved. He violated 3RR, but in response to the 3RR notification the page got protected -- on Faust's broken, unsourced, even grammatically incorrect version -- and all other editors were warned against reverting as well.

I am at a loss for where to go from here, as it is clear that Faust will never listen to consensus, and now even unanimous action of all other editors can't keep his faulty version off the page. There is an RfC about it in place but it has not had any response, and I doubt any number of further comments will have any effect on Faust anyway.

Faust is involved in similarly tendentious disputes elsewhere, such as Talk:Deontological ethics (in which I am also involved) and Talk:Teleology (which I am only observing), and the general consensus of other editors across Wikipedia (at the 3RR about Morality, and at an ANI section on something else) seems to be that he is a problematic editor all around.

But I don't know what to do about any of this. Can you help?

Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Pfh, I have very limited time for Wikipedia right now. If you haven't already, try discussing with Faust directly, dropping a line at the philosophy project/ask for a third opinion/another of the options listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or if those don't work, give a concise and neutral summation of the problems at WP:ANI [tell them I sent you]. If trouble is still brewing when I get a chance to resume activity here, I promise I will try to help resolve matters. Regards, Skomorokh 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Chzz, your ecumenical and tasteful selection of religious obervances merit praise to the same degree that your interior design skills appal – navy and yellow, really?! Yarr, Skomorokh 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

e-mail?

Would it be possible to send you an e-mail? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, any time. Special:Emailuser/Skomorokh Skomorokh 19:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Catching up with encyclopaedia matters today, should expect a reply later on this. Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I have not had time for any big projects here on Wiki, but that is one I would like to get sorted out. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A feeling

I'm the facilitator of Politics of Piracy, a new course in the Public Policy Project. The class is sectioned into 5 categories of focus for article improvement; copyleft, filesharing, historical cases, collaborative production, and hacking. That last is the area in which I will be concentrating, and the most congruous to feeling you've tried to create on your user page. Logical?

Greetings, Maximilian, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. To respond, I might sympathise with the romantic figure of the hacker, but I know nothing of what she does. I would of course be happy to help in whichever capacity is required, but don't expect any technical literacy! Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What is gatago.com

I think you added a ref here that points to gatago.com but when I try to go to the page it says the server is busy. I don't think it's reliable anyways so I'm going to remove it. But just in case it is, I thought maybe you could clarify. Thank you. Devourer09 02:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I merely altered the formatting from an inline external link like this, to an inline citation

like this

I know nothing of the site itself. Best, Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, oh. I thought you added it. I was going through the history to try and figure out who the person was that added it. It took me 30 minutes of clicking links and using a psuedo binary search technique. Do you know of any tools that make it easier? Preferably browser based tools. Devourer09 (t·c) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I know it's a chore to try and track down such information. WikiBlame is the only tool that springs to mind though I can't vouch for its effectiveness. Best of luck, Skomorokh 21:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw WikiBlame before but I didn't take it seriously. That tool is remarkably powerful. I just started using it after you suggested it. You should give it a try sometime. Devourer09 (t·c) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember dismissing it at the time I came across it too; thanks for the tip. Skomorokh 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 coordination page

Hi, I've created it, incompetently, of course. It will need the attention of someone who knows what they're talking about in terms of page creation.

I'm going to use last year's election page as it was just before the start of voting as the basis of a draft for the ACE2010 page. If we're to start the call for nominations in early November, and the voting in the second half of November, we still have more than three weeks to prepare.

I think there should be call for volunteers at the Village Pump. Shall I post one?

Emailing you, too. Tony (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative here Tony; I will be strongly focused on this as time is running short. Shall email shortly. Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in matching the predecessor by including a month—a very undesirable one, too, locking us in to lateness. I purposely removed it. Tony (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's undesirable to abandon a prevailing convention midway through, especially when it is there for good reason — elections haven't necessarily been and will not necessarily be annual events. Skomorokh 23:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really midway, is it? Two weeks earlier would still be five weeks from now. Those who commented did not want it as a pre-Xmas rush. I think there's every reason to improve, update, modify, year by year. BTW, it is ensconced as an annual event. Tony (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear; the convention I refer to is this one. It is very likely that elections at another time of the year or with a shorter interval than one year since the last will become necessary at some point – as the recent history of the Russian and German ArbComs indicate. It would be poor planning to have "Arbitration Committee Elections 2010", then need another election the following June after crisis or depletion (there were only 8 of 18 arbs active on the climate change case), and the usual one in December (giving "2010", June 2011, "2011"). Best to stick to the proper specificity for clarity. Skomorokh 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As a mentor.

I think it was ment, to be. What do you think?

Certainement. Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hello, I am a graduate student at Indiana University, and am taking a class on Urban Economic Development where we are getting training in editing and posting on Wikipedia. Part of our "initiation" is to choose a mentor, and your bio seemed similar to not only my interests, but the focus of the class as well. I hope you will be my mentor, and can offer me some good advice seeing how I'm new to all of this.

Cheers,

Meister84 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hola, Meister, I would be very happy to act as your mentor. Let me know what you're curious about learning or if you run into trouble. I'll keep an eye on your talkpage and contributions and jump in if I think I can be of help. Best, Skomorokh 13:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh, I copied over your reply to Meister84's talk page. Hope you don't mind. In future, can you please reply on the students' talk pages? They don't know about watchlisting and might think you did not reply. Thanks! Bejinhan talks 13:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that was thoughtful. Skomorokh 11:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?

Hi Skomorokh,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FFF article

I did accidentally tag bomb that article, still not used to the new tagger and several tags were redundant. That was unintentional. You beat me to fixing that and so I left it alone after I saw you were trying to clean it up.

I was serious about what appeared to be intentionally misleading labels on the lower quality external inks to pass them off as references.

I'll leave it alone since you appear to trying to fix some of the issue. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done, and thank you for your considerate message. I appreciate the sincerity of what you were concerned with, and definitely share your apprehension about topics of dubious notability having dodgy sources passed off as references. Only when links are clearly labelled "External links", the issue becomes less one of reliability and more "is this useful/interesting for the reader?". For short articles like FFF, these sorts of links go a long way to make up for our poor coverage even though they should never be used to source content. The thing about tagging is that it is rarely useful unless the issues are beyond one's own ability to fix practically, so I didn't think it constructive here when verifying sources and finding categories took just a couple of minutes. Best regards, Skomorokh 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination

Hi there. I am interested in volunteering at the Arbitration elections, mostly out of a desire to help Wikipedia, but also out of an intellectual curiosity spurred on my my academic training in political science. I have three questions.

1. Am I elegible to join (I'm not an admin, but I am an editor in good standing)
2. Is it too late to join (The elections are only what, a month away)
3. If I can join, what still needs to be done.

Please use a talkback to inform me if you respond.

Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Moved

Not that I don't like Fetchcomms, but coordinating outselves on his talk page might not be the best idea. I looted the relivent material from his page and set up a workspace for us at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination. I do believe we should keep our future communications there, or elsewhere in "Wikipedia:" space, for transparency, posterity, and efficiency reasons. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Public Policy Wikiproject

I'm in the Legal History group in the UC Berkeley Politics of Piracy class, working on the Public Policy Wikiproject. Your profile said you specialized in history and politics, so I thought you could be a very good resource as I figure out how this works. I'll appreciate however you can help.

The group is working on articles relating to the history of different kinds of intellectual property piracy. We split up into sub-groups, so a partner and I are working specifically on the history of intellectual property and copyright infringement before the digital age, or a sort of printing press piracy. He found a Wikipedia article which mentioned briefly that sort of thing, and we were talking about breaking that section out to its own page. I'd show you the link, but I'm not sure which article it was in, I'll have to double check with him tomorrow. We've also found a book, titled Piracy that talks about piracy before digital computers, and I'm looking around for a second source, currently.

That's about where we're at now. Android the Andrew (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Andrew, great to hear from you and I would be happy to help out. It's a fascinating topic area to be sure, and I particularly like the angle you are taking with it. Two 20th century topics that immediately sprung to mind about pre-Internet piracy were mix tape culture (see, for instance Home Taping Is Killing Music) and zines, which liberally appropriated copyrighted text and images. Although technically, this stuff stretches all the way back to Gutenberg at least, so you should have no trouble finding topics!

As regards finding a topic and splitting it out to its own page, this is likely a good option, as Wikipedia's content in this area is underdeveloped. What you will need at minimum is at least two mutli-paragraph reliable sources (i.e. from scholarly books, academic journals, magazine articles, broadsheet newspapers) that discuss the topic in detail.

Let me know what I can help with; you can leave a comment here any time and I'll get back to you asap (and feel free to tell your colleague likewise). I'll also keep an eye on your talkpage and contributions in case you run into trouble with the natives. Ciao, Skomorokh 11:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 11:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Special Cases, when you template a regular editor, particularly when you level a serious allegation against them as you've done here, diffs are pretty much essential. It's well-nigh impossible for anyone to investigate your claim without diffs - the only point-of-intersection I can see between you and Skomorokh is at Intelligent dance music, and I assume you're not suggesting that this is a personal attack? TFOWR 11:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR. It might have helped Special Cases develop a better understanding about how all this works if I had had someone else leave a gentler message, but hard to anticipate these sorts of things in advance. Skomorokh 11:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you were too harsh. He seems to understand how it works, and he's able & willing to research and use all the proper templates and procedures for advancing his agenda—he just deliberately avoids fulfilling any requirement in those procedures wherein he would have to defend his position or acknowledge that it has zero support. For example, he used the AfD and prod templates on the IDM article, but never articulated an argument for why the deletion/merge should occur. He only ever gave an argument (sort of) at Talk:Intelligent dance music#Merge, and his only response to the rejection of his proposal was to proceed without further discussion. I went to the trouble of giving him some constructive advice for how to handle the situation both there and on his user talk page, but he ignored it. That he continues to post on both of our talk pages from anonymous IPs suggests he's not above holding a grudge against those who call him out on it. I hope he eventually figures out that he can catch more flies with honey. —mjb (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Special Cases was been indef blocked. The above warning appears to have been some sort of hoax, troll, or disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 12:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Special Invite

You have been invited to comment in a special Request for Constructive Criticism page. I am looking for areas in which I can improve. I have identified you as both an experienced and trusted Wikipedian, and as someone that has had sufficient contact with me to able to recognize areas in which I can improve. Please feel free to visit and post any comments or criticism you have. At a certain point, I cannot improve if no one tells me what I need to work on. Thanks in advance, Sven Manguard Talk 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

formatting at ER

Hi, the text arrangement with the cquotes etc looks a bit untidy to me. Not sure how/whether to fix it. Sleep now. Tony (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'll muck around and see if something better can be found. Skomorokh 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Articlr

Hi Skomorokh,

I'm a member of Peter Linquiti's Policy Analysis Course at GWU. For my class assignment, we have to critique an article that has been rated and provided an letter ranking (i.e. B or C). Would it be possible to rate this article: Land Titling?

Thanks!

Kcsl