User talk:Skomorokh/Ե

FYI

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 6 Mr.Z-man 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic, I hope the technical implementation works out and that editors make use of the new tool. Thanks once more Mr.Z-man! Skomorokh 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History merge required

{{admin!}} Could the history of red pawn be merged into Red Pawn? It looks as if the author created and edited the article at the former location, then copypasted the result to the correct location, after which it was edited by others. Skomorokh 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless and efficient, cheers to you! Skomorokh 19:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist naturism

Hi, you tagged this for rescue. Could you please comment in the AfD on the article's merits or needs, etc for other who are wondering why or how it could be rescued? Thank you . 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Polestar Racing Group DYK nom

I've responded to your comment. Please see the DYK nom page for details. NoCal100 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Cheers, Skomorokh 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - thanks for approving this quickly :) NoCal100 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand quote

Hi, Skomorokh. I noticed your revert on the quote I deleted at Ayn Rand. The same quote is also found in another reference note at the beginning of the article. (It currently shows as citation number 3. Not sure why it's 3 despite being the first note on the page.) I can understand the significance of it in the earlier note, which contains several other quotes on the same point. But surely we don't need it again in a citation about the date of her death? --RL0919 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, sorry, my bad. There had been some acrimony about those references in the past but given the redundancy you are right, there doesn't seem to be a need for the second quotation. Mahalo, Skomorokh 04:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby?

Hi - why did you characterise my tagging of Dale Rogers Training Center as driveby? I explained myself pretty clearly on User talk:EPresslerHenderson, showing that I had tried to find evidence of notability before I tagged the article. As I said there, I'm not going to replace the notability tag, but I don't think adding it was a driveby. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not been aware of your comment to the editor, and the lack of reply and absence of discussion on the article talkpage was the reason for my removal. You're right, it was not a drive-by. I don't object to the restoration of the tag if you feel that notability is not yet proven. Mahalo, Skomorokh 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed prod from Scott Wright (American football)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Scott Wright (American football), which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK

I believe is a a little ugly there -and not usual- but if you believe it is useful, no problem! (but it's ugly :P) --Nihilo 01 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I want to know if you agree with my changes here [1]. I tried to give it the same line of the main article, but I want to know if I'm doing it well. Thank you :)--Nihilo 01 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer

Thanks for the improvement work on the Sam Blacketer controversy article. OpenSeven (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for the catch. It was supposed to be FPC.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golos Truda

Hi, I am reviewing Golos Truda for GA and have left some initial comments at Talk:Golos Truda/GA1. I think it is a very interesting article and am curious to know a bit more about the subject, since the various types of anarchism are confusing to me! Soviet history is also interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in completing this? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I certainly am, and I am very sorry for the disgraceful delay in my response to the comments; hopefully I can get to it tonight and we can complete the review at your leisure. Skomorokh 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Golos Truda has now achieved GA status. Thanks go to you, Skomorokh! The ATF has so many lovely trophies in its game room thanks to you. --Cast (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplant

{{adminhelp}} I have had a biography of Andrew Lih festering in my userspace at User:Skomorokh/Lih for a while, during which time the redlink was turned blue (Andrew Lih). I think the userspace version is superior to the current article, so if you agree, could you merge the two so that the current version of User:Skomorokh/Lih becomes the new Andrew Lih, and that the histories of both are present? Mahalo, Skomorokh 02:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good job with the article! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Julian, it's very basic but hopefully an improvement. Thanks for taking care of that, Skomorokh 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majoritarianism

Hi Skomorokh, re your comment about majoritarianism, you might want to check out my fifth point at User:Giano/The future#View by WereSpielChequers Ϣere SpielChequers 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I had read that and been jolted into remembering I had intended to bring this up at WT:ACE2009. I haven't got much time to spend on here at the moment, but would a drive for STV at ArbCom elections be something think you could lend (rhetorical, campaigning and/or practical) support to? Skomorokh 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I raised it at the tail end of 2008 but can't now find the page. However I've got one or two too many plates spinning so can't make any commitments at present. Also my raising it on Giano's page has only attracted two supports including Giano; And if we raise it anywhere else I fear we risk it being talked of in terms of do you want Giano elected to Arbcom. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the note. Skomorokh 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from New Mexico

Big fan of your work Skomorokoko I just wanted to thank you for defending our rights to free speech and civili liberties. Thanks bud! --The real joe torres (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In truth I am just happy to be championing Danny Lightfoot of the Mic-Mac Nation; any benefits to free speech and civili liberties are accidental. Yours in eternal adversity, The One Undisputed Joe Torres 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that

But still he made it. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 23:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with making doomed RfAs for oneself, but your transclusion pushed the user - who certainly does not know what they are in for - into the line of fire. No good will come of this. Regards, Skomorokh 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for reverting the vandalism on my User and Talk pages. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Malik; that's a nasty one you've got there. Skomorokh 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Skomorokh 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convention advises that your RfA begin with a 'User' template

Hello Skomorokh. To save editors from the arduous task of typing, if they want to access your user page, it would be helpful if you prefaced your nomination (at the top of the page) with {{User|Skomorokh}}. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I wasn't aware of that; jumping in feet first seemed like a much more fun idea. Is it properly formatted now? Cheers, Skomorokh 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Ed! Skomorokh 12:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social anarchism

Hello. I would really love to see your thoughts and opinions on the page move over here. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo stranger, will do. Skomorokh 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see now. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your RfA

First off, thanks for changing your signature to link to your talk page.

Now, the reason I noticed that it the first place is that I was coming here to say that my original RfA question isn't actually "a personal crusade" question. I ask the notability question not to look for any specific answer, but rather to try and get some insight about whether the admin candidate has thought about this important concept. The reason being is that I prefer admins have a strong understanding of what notability means and why we have those guidelines.

I am pretty sure you do understand notability throughly, and you certainly don't have to answer the question. I most likely will support either way, and have no intention of opposing (and certainly the RfA is going to pass). I just thought you should know that I ask the Q for insight, not to vote for like-minded people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my comment I conflated candidate-nonspecific questions with personal crusade ones, when only some of the former are examples of the latter; your questions certainly do not look like personal crusade questions, and I meant no disrespect. That said, I don't think questions that do not arise from reviewing a candidate's contributions are really in the spirit of analysis and discussion. You should be able to get a good idea of my stances on notability from the recent AfDs I commented on: 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. I hadn't necessarily decided against answering your questions—I answered two general questions of Fastily's because they happened to have relevance to the candidacy. I've thought a lot about notability, but ultimately my stances on the issue are orthodox. Regards, Skomorokh 18:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply & diffs. I will be voting to support now (not like you need it :)) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green anarchism

Hi, can you tell me what is bad with this version: [2] and why is better a version that isn't in line with WP:VER, WP:POV and even in quality of redaction... :/ I don't want problems, I'm just trying to present a better article for the readers explaing what is green anarchism like a whole (and I believe I'm not doing it so wrong). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nihilo, I don't know enough about green anarchism to tell if the unreferenced content is correct and just needs added sources, or false and misleading. I would suggest asking at WT:ATF, but I think Maziotis probably knows more about the subject than anyone there. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to improve the anarchism articles, and wish I had more time to get involved. Regards, Skomorokh 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]