User talk:Skomorokh/ا

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sandstein, Arbcom[edit]

What are the ArbCom cases you mentioned in the RFC/U? Mindbunny (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling. Best, Skomorokh 10:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Leibniz formula for pi[edit]

Hi, Just to let you know that I've reopened the move discussion - Leibniz formula for pi#Requested move part 2. There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#FYI: Leibniz formula for pi it seems like the 7 day period had not elapsed and the was not a sufficiently overwhelming consensus for a non admin close.--Salix (talk): 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if you want to have a second debate, but you're quite mistaken on a number of points:
1. The discussion was listed at the backlog section of requested moves; it was ripe for closure.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skomorokh
3. There was no consensus to move.
Best, Skomorokh 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Re point 2 checking Special:UserRights/Skomorokh you do not appear to have the admin bit set, which is what I looked at. Don't know why that is you might want to get a bureaucrat to have a look at it.--Salix (talk): 11:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Danah Boyd[edit]

Hiya, I saw that you moved the article Danah Boyd to danah boyd. As you may be aware, this was a controversial move, and was not done through WP:RM. I have therefore reverted the move and restored the original title. If you believe that there is consensus for a move, please go ahead and file it through the proper channels, thanks. --Elonka 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the article talkpage at its new idiosyncratic location. Skomorokh 17:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


I've declined your speedy because the link you give goes to a Webster's search - and at the top of their list is This sometimes happens with apparent copyvios. They are referring to us, not us referring to them. If you've got any more evidence that ours is illicit, let me know. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ach, I'm a little rusty at CSD, the possibility didn't occur to me. I had assumed Webster's was one of those old-school pay-professionals-to-create-content outfits. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for taking the time to explain, Skomorokh 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


I came up with another alternative, keeping the word 'rescue' and leaving the words 'deletion discussion' and 'discussion' in place (in line with the incredibly biased poll from the Talk page), while still trying to improve the Template *and* make it line up with its own guidelines for use, and you are calling it edit warring. Now, I have presented facts, I have presented discussion, and I have listened to others. The one thing I have done, that others have not done, is provide suggestions to improve the template, and provided contributions in the Template for that purpose. It is clear from the facts that things need improvement, and I have just today soliticed outside input from the Village Pump and NPOV Noticeboard. I'm not sure how waiting days, weeks, or months for others to come up with positive suggestions contributes to the encyclopedia, but could you enlighten me? -- Avanu (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions.

From what I can tell, I'm the only one there doing 'work' as defined by the Edit warring page, those on the status quo side, just want nothing to happen at all, others are saying, this is pointless, they'll never listen, and a few other editors are saying, there should be a change, we just aren't certain what yet. BRD suggests to try things out, and if people hate it, then they can revert it and talk about it. How's that wrong? -- Avanu (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop. Just stop. Whatever your intentions, you are now actively, persistently disrupting the project. Whether you're willfully ignoring all the behavioural advice editors have been offering or simply incapable of understanding it, this inexplicable crusade is well past the point of any potential of being constructive. I can only echo Kuru's disappointment at this litany of misconduct. Skomorokh 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize we were still going on about the above thing. A lot of other things and discussions have happened since I left the message above. The idea that this is a 'litany' of misconduct seems a bit over the top, but I'll not argue about it. My goal is to improve things, and attacking me doesn't solve anything. I'm more than willing to work with others, we just need willing people. I see a LOT of common and fertile ground between those on one 'side' and the other. Hopefully you can have that same perspective instead of labeling me an adversary. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello! I was stumbling over my contrib's and I came across this userfied articled. It was deleted per AFD and you chose to userfy it for improvement. Since then, only 1 IP edit has been made to remove a link to another website and a category. It hasn't been improved at all and is serving as a promotional article in the userspace. Could you please delete per the AfD? Does it need to be taken to MfD? Thanks.--v/r - TP 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, TParis. That page was userfied on request from a good faith editor, and there remains potential for an encyclopaedic article therein. As such, I am afraid I will not delete that page as I see no benefit to the encyclopaedia from doing so. If you want to take it through some procedural deletion I won't stand in your way, but I would suggest a re-examination of priorities is in order. Skomorokh 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again! I understand it was a request by a good faith editor, but being the respected admin that you are I am sure at the time you probably had a stipulation such as "I'll userfy it so you can improve it." As the user hasn't made any improvements, have they not failed on their part? I'm thinking WP:STALEDRAFT here.--v/r - TP 21:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I understand where you are coming from with this, I just can't in good conscience proceed with something that would do more harm than good to the project. The cost of storing such pages is so miniscule that the potential benefit of someone creating something encyclopedia-worthy, however unlikely that possibility might be, far exceeds it. Skomorokh 21:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. I'll make a decent effort to improve it and send it to MFD if I can't.--v/r - TP 21:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That's reasonable; sorry for taking up your time with this. Skomorokh 21:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a word to the wise when it comes to userspace drafts: unless specifically labeled NO_INDEX, these pages have a tendency to float to the top of Google results for the subject. It's more or less irrelevant if the title is a common word, a website, or something that does not discuss a living person (as are all the case here); however, when it comes to BLPs, this can be seriously problematic. Nobody watches userspace drafts, really; I've found some of the worst BLP vios on the site in these drafts, several of which are abandoned userfied deleted articles that have had that certain je ne sais quoi added to them. If you're going to move them, please NO_INDEX them, and please keep your eye on the BLPs there and set a deadline for return to mainspace. Even with non-BLPs, it is not uncommon to have a WP userspace draft show up in the top 10 google hits for a subject, and many casual readers can't differentiate between a userspace draft and a really bad article. Risker (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I watchlist every article I userfy and would not be inclined to let dubious material about named living people lie around our servers, but it's a good point about drafts being mistaken for actual articles, I overlooked making that clear in this instance. I have little sympathy for using NOINDEX outside of potentially harmful material – it does very real and tangible damage to the informational ecosystem we are trying to foster for our stakeholders. Skomorokh 13:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

David Norris (politician)[edit]

As it's been five days, I thought I should remind you that I hav replied to your comments here. ~Asarlaí 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up; I don't have time to respond immediately so while I hope you take the issues I raised into consideration, don't let me stand in the way of your conception of how the article might be responsibly improved. Le meas, Skomorokh 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

George Orwell GA/FA[edit]

Thanks If you're interested, do you have any idea what might need to be done or good sources? Please respond on my talk if it's not too much trouble. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually This makes more sense: Talk:George Orwell/comments. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hullo Justin, did you want me to do an actual GA review or a mock one at the linked page? Skomorokh 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sum of Logic[edit]

I have added a few things here, fully referenced. They will probably all be reverted shortly, I trust you can do the right thing as you have been a friend to this page in the past. (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of us still aspire for Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia rather than a sandbox for a den of children's social experiments. Thank you for your improvements. Skomorokh 23:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Skomorokh, I'm sure you are operating in good faith, and I do regret it if you object to my removal of Peter Damian's comment from your page. However, Damian - the user operating as the ever-changing IP 109.x - has been banned from the community, and that includes any contributions made as an IP sockpuppet. If you disagree with this, you need to take it up at the appropriate forum. However, we cannot simply revert a banned user's material back in. --Ckatzchatspy 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I in turn am sure you are proceeding in good faith, but you don't know the stupid policy you're misguidedly trying to enforce – have a read and don't make any further detrimental edits to our articles on its account. I take responsibility for the content. Skomorokh 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You can take responsibility for the content, but the link has to stay out. Furthermore, please note that the policy clearly outlines that "bans apply to all editing, good or bad". Also, with respect to "edits by and on behalf of banned editors", note the text that states: "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them". You may have your own opinions about Mr. Damian - I can't speak to that - but it does not override the fact that his behaviour has led to a ban from Wikipedia. Quoting from the discussion regarding that ban:

"He's banned, full stop - his accounts are blocked. Any socks are blocked. Any IP addresses or additional accounts linked to him after the ban passes are blocked."

--Ckatzchatspy 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The banning policy does not mandate that banned editors' contributions be reverted, it merely allows it – shifts the goalposts from assume good faith where you don't know better to assume bad faith. The thing is, in this instance, we do know better – the editor in question is a subject matter expert who has shown a great deal of concern for and put a lot of conscientious effort into improving the encyclopaedia's coverage of history if logic and medieval philosophy, and if you investigate the substance of the contributions you and other administrators have taken it upon yourselves to remove, this fact would be plain.
Peter Damian could not collaborate productively with Wikipedians under our terms – something I had significant negative experience of first-hand – and was banned as a result. The purpose of this ban, ultimately, was to prevent him from making unconstructive contributions. By deliberately thwarting his efforts at making constructive contributions, you are not helping the project, you're doing the reverse. Wikipedia is not a social club, a role-playing game, or reform school – improving the encyclopaedia should be the primary motivation behind every edit we make. Skomorokh 13:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Logic Museum - spam blacklist[edit]

Here. Why was this? It contains much primary material that is not elsewhere available on the net. Thank you for your efforts on Sum of Logic. I have added some further sections by way of a thank you. Though there is still much to do - this is the greatest work of one of Europe's greatest logicians and philosophers. Regards Quisquiliae (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, they are sincerely appreciated by some, if not all of us. As for the Spam blacklist – good luck to you. Most charitably, it can be considered a case of a hypersensitive Wikipedia immune system; less charitably, as a political tool by admins to punish their enemies – anything contradicting the House POV, related to banned editors, and so on. It has very little to do with mass unsolicited commercial postings. Trying to fight once-off cases is a futile effort in my experience; getting broader attention to its abuses would be a better use of time. Regards, Skomorokh 14:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling correction experiment[edit]

I am trying an experiment if I may. Here is a link to the Latin Wikisource version of Summa Logicae which was copied by someone from my site, without permission in 2009. This link should work perfectly. Now that version contains a spelling mistake which I have corrected on my own version here [1]. I want to see if we now have the absurd and wonderful result that I am unable to post the spelling correction on Wikipedia because of the spam blacklist. (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As you see, Wikipedia seems to accept the link to the correction. Does this mean the spam blacklist does not work? (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The technicalities are not something I would be fluent in. The English Wikipedia spam blacklist only prevents banned URLs being added locally, and not to the Latin Wikisource, if that's what you mean. Skomorokh 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Emilie Autumn[edit]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Emilie Autumn to good article status.
--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. the only contribution I can remember making to the article is to stub it (and nearly send for deletion) on BLP grounds, so I am delighted at the progress that has been made. Best, Skomorokh 18:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Buchi edits[edit]

Hello Skomorokh, I had to undo your edits on Complementation of Büchi automaton. There is a lot to say about complementation of buchi automaton. I was infact planning to extend it. I hope my action will not discourage you or make you angry. Ashutosh Gupta (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, knock yourself out. Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bennett Scale and DMIS[edit]

Hi, I am new in editing wiki but quit experienced in the field of the topic of intercultural communication. There is a page called Bennett scale that is an inappropriate way of calling the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). This last one now redirects to the Bennett scale. I would like to swap them by putting the text on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and redirecting whoever searches for the Bennett scale there. I would like to do so because I have never heard this model called "the Bennett Scale". It is inappropriate and unused. I am writing to you because when I tried to do so you canceled my operation. Is there any reason? Can I swap them? Thanks (User:saichi6) 14:39 , 5th June 2011

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to, but you might find the helpdesk of use. Regards, Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi; just to let you know, I added the talkback notice using Twinkle which doesn't display the edit-notice! You may want to place the request onto your actual talkpage to avoid the same situation in future? Best, ╟─TreasuryTagcollectorate─╢ 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, might explain why no-one seemed to notice it; thanks for taking the time to explain. Skomorokh 13:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Luton Town[edit]

Indeed they have! What fun. Thanks for the message. Cliftonianthe orangey bit 14:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whole Wheat Radio[edit]

Hi. I think it's good for the encyclopedia that the AfD result was keep. I saw your tag bombing note in connection with Whole Wheat Radio. Yes, it was me. I'd just like to clarify a few points please:

  1. I was unaware of the tag bombing essay;
  2. I did not feel that WP:PROD was appropiate, when it was possible to clean up the article and retain it;
  3. My placing of the {{Multiple issues}} tag was intended to point out to others what areas of the article may require work in order to avoid outright removal of material, or indeed deletion;
  4. I apologise if this was obvious to you, but I wanted to make it clear to others that it was known that the article had issues;
  5. I disagree that the action was "absolutely ridiculous" or "shameful" and my reasons for not doing further edits myself at that time (aside from the tenses stuff) is that my focus is on other articles.

I hope this makes sense to you. Kind regards. --Trevj (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Learn it, love it, live it. Regards, Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

from slightlymuddy re: atemporality[edit]

shouldn't your page be a full wikipedia page? At present it comes up high in a google search, but not within wikipedia itself.

After writing it and reading the result, I still don't understand the topic, so I don't think so. Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

St. Cummin[edit]

hello skomorokh, did you change some of the [artical st cummin,] at towordes the end of 2009. user name pcummin (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)]

hello scomorokh, did you edit tha artical [st cummin wikipedia]on the 15 aug., 2009.[user name pcummin (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed. Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ebeyeamanda [edit]

Your July 7 edit summary requested that you be consulted before deletion. As this was not done by the nominator, I am doing it myself after-the-fact. I think a move to a subpage and then tagged as a work-in-progress draft would be decent and non-bitey to the perhaps notable Nigerian author. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, WP:BITE was indeed my main concern. Skomorokh 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Sko, heavens, I'm on a primitive connection away from civilisation this week. Done FC, but the two main items of the SP, NAN and ITN, seem not to have been started. Publication is normally within the next 12 hours. Any chance you could poke around and find out what's happening? Tony (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the time and the inclination, but lack the knowledge. Where's the content to be found? Skomorokh 13:17, 18 July 2011

St Cummin[edit]

hello scomorokh,[artical st cummin.] thanks for the reply.i created the original artical. you did a good job editing it, but you wasted your time.some body has taken everythig off and put there own artical in its place. i dont see the justis in that.[user name pcummin (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)]

st cummin article changes,hello skomorokh,i go to the church of st cummin next week and will be taking new photos[improved]is it ok if i put them on the article and take the original ones off.i will go to the open air mass for st cummin,if you go let your self be known to father hegarty and he will introduce you to me.father hegarty knows me because i go to the mass every year[user name p cummin] (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullo, the quest for photographs sounds great, let me know if you have any trouble trying to upload them. As for the article itself, I really don't know anything about the topic; it has been changed because everyone here is free to edit articles if they think they can improve them, so if you have changes you want to make I would say go right ahead. Le meas, Skomorokh 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TRIP Database[edit]

Wondering if it is worth mentioning that TRIP Database now includes Wikipedia entries [2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow; I have no involvement with the article. Skomorokh 23:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking in signpost? Also there is a comment found regarding Wikipedia in the BMJ blog [3] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A favor, perhaps?[edit]

First, greetings! It has been a long time since we communicated.

Second, would you mind bringing your knowledge of William Gibson here and offer a comment on this issue I have raised? I would appreciate it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullo stranger! I would of course be happy to lend a hand, though I'm not sure I appreciate what your interlocutor is getting at. Skomorokh 19:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
My interlocutor? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Defamed By Wikipedia[edit]

I no longer attempt to work through Wikipedia talk pages or Wikipedia in general regarding the malicious and defamatory material which left-wing Wikipedia editors, acting out of ideological bias and their own personal agendas, have repeatedly inserted into my Wikipedia entry. I attempted to use the Wikipedia mediation and arbitration procedures, as prescribed, and to date I have not received one single reply from anyone in authority at Wikipedia. Every attempt I have made to use Wikipedia's formal complaints procedure has been simply ignored and my comments taken off line (as this comment probably will be.) FIVE YEARS of discussion was blown away in this manner, I presume because I was making my case against the entry in too persuasive a manner and the Wiki-kooks were becoming embarrassed.

I use multiple accounts, yes, because Wikipedia has responded to my repeated attempts to get them to remove malicious and defamatory material from my entry with silence and with censorship. They say that the greatest compliment one man can pay to another is to attempt to silence him by force. I could do with fewer such compliments from Wikipedia.

These days I carry on my efforts to counter the false, malicious and defamatory material from my entry in a forum which (so far) Wikipedia and the rest of the left has failed to silence. Check out

This site has so terrified the Wiki-kooks that they have banned it, si I can't postg the complete link.

-Harold A. Covington

Hello, I was unfamiliar with your case and am not sure why you have contacted me, but our article on the topic was a disgrace, and I have removed the bulk of its content. Skomorokh 15:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian[edit]

Hi, can you explain your recent removal of the psoriasis issue at Kim Kardashian, bearing in mind that she does modeling etc. Is the source not reliable? It replaced another comment that noted she has actually (allegedly, since I have no interest!) said this in the reality show. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the issue is not the truth or verifiability of the claim, but its appropriateness in an encyclopaedia biographical article. We have a responsibility not to publish overly personal details that are not necessary to understanding the notability of the subject. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really help me to understand, sorry. She has broadcast this information herself & she has apparently done a lot of modeling. The skin ocndition, which apparently has been recently diagnosed, impacts on her career as a model (although airbrushing may help!). I have no great interest in the article subject & have it watchlisted just because of the ridiculous amount of vandalism and unsourced stuff that goes on there, but in this instance the relevant info does seem pertinent. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The sentence I removed made no such claim of pertinence, rather it was an unseemly intrusion into the private life of the subject. I take your point that she may have publicised it herself and does not seem to have a problem with it being well-known, but I would put it to you that the standards of integrity we hold our publication to ought not take their lead from reality television. Regards, Skomorokh 18:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I would be quite happy if reality television did not exist, period <g> However, it does and she does, and the condition affects her career. As such, it seems to be viable information to me. I am pretty sure that the cited source also quotes her saying that it affected her career, but I only skimmed it when it was added - all I was checking was that the source supported the statement being made. Would a third opinion be worth seeking? - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I would not be happy with adding a comment like "Kardashian's modelling career was complicated in Month 2011 when she was diagnosed with psoriasis" to the modelling section of the article, but that would be a lot less reprehensible than having an entire section – a chapter in the biography, if you will – documenting her suffering from an incurable skin condition. I just checked the [disreputable] source to see if such claim could be verified, and there was nothing substantial there. Aside that is, from this quote by Ms. Kardashian: ""People don't understand the pressure on me to look perfect. ... When I gain a pound, it's in the headlines. Imagine what the tabloids would do to me if they saw all these spots?"
Now read that and ask yourself if restoring that information is really making the world a better place. Skomorokh 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I will deal with the fall-out when it happens on the page, as it surely will. Like I intimated, I would be quite content if the entire genre did not exist! Doubtless WP:OSE will have to be deployed in this instance because there will almost certainly be similar stuff about other subjects elsewhere. It might be worth sticking a note on the article talk page to explain, and "head them off at the pass". - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that holding the line on questions like this can be a headache for maintainers, but, you know, standards have to be set for any sort of quality control. Thank you for your courtesy and diligence in this discussion, I admire your efforts in defending the article. Skomorokh 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview[edit]

Hey, just a heads up that I'm working on the interview with my colleagues and that it will be done in time for the regular Signpost deadline. Cheers, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven, that's fantastic, we're looking to run this in tonight's issue. I am afk for the day due to unforeseen circumstances, but the story is in the capable hands of Tony1, who should be in touch for alterations and the like. Thanks again, Skomorokh 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Signpost contributions[edit]

I'll see what I can do. A bit of uncharted territory for me, however. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It was for me a fortnight ago too, but nothing too it, especially for an author of your calibre. Just need to make sure someone responsible is keeping an eye on things today. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic logic[edit]

I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic


CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


This any good to you?  Chzz  ►  15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing edit[edit]

Please explain This edit to Søren_Kierkegaard placed the article in Category:Søren_Kierkegaard with the sortkey "Søren Kierkegaard" rather than the original " ". Can you explain why? WP:SORTKEY reads (in part): "Use a space as the sort key for an article matching an [[#Eponymous categories|eponymous category]], or for a [[Wikipedia:Glossary#Key article|key article]] for the category. Typically, these eponymous articles or categories are best listed ''first'' even if they do not appear first in alphabetical order. For example, the article [[Barack Obama]] includes the category sort key <code><nowiki>[[Category:Barack Obama| ]]. This places the article at the start of the listing for that category. (Note: If the key article should not be a member, simply edit the category text itself to add it, perhaps using {{Cat main}}.)" I don't understand replacing the space and I really don't understand sorting by his first name. Please illuminate... Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be attributable to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter, I imagine; I did not intentionally edit the categories specifically. Hth, Skomorokh 03:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
ThanksJustin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


st cummin, artical removed. hello scomorokh, the camera i took to st cummin shrine did not work properly so i will take a new one next year. i go to the royal society of antiquaries of ireland soon. when i am there i will get the number of the page [the annals of ireland, by the four masters.] that gives the name of the first coimin [cummin] then you can check it out that it is fact.

Thank you for the update, and best of luck with the photography. Skomorokh 17:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your appreciation.[edit]

Hi Skomorokh,

Thanks for showing your appreciation for the article. If your not to busy would you mind taking a look at This DYK nomination of mine Template:Did you know nominations/The Longford Trust, its close to getting promoted. Not to worry if you can't. Thanks again.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · [ Talk ] 11:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My 15 minutes of fame[edit]

Hi Skomorokh. Thanks for bringing that article to my attention. I thought my 15 minutes had passed with this article, but I guess I'm "lucky".

I'll think about whether to comment for Signpost and get back to you later, okay? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, they really have the knives out; all the featured articles in the world don't compensate for being on the wrong side of identity politics, it seems. Publication is Monday evening UTC, so have a think on it over the weekend. Skomorokh 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've given it some thought and decided that I have nothing to add to what FrontPage has to say. (Although I do appreciate the comment left there by Lamont Cranston, who I swear is not me: "Maybe its the facts that have a left wing bias?") — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gibson in the City[edit]

Sko', Cast dropping the hot ticket here to a magical cybertrip through the meta-textual city-scape of 'da fu'cha! -- oh whatever, here's some links to a dude who talks smart:

I'm not sure what you could do with these, but perhaps you'd find a better use for them than I. --Cast (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yo stranger, long time! I caught those delicious slices of gibsonia a while back, along with a The Paris Review piece and NYT op-ed. Have been letting them stew, as any thought of incrementally improving the monstrosity of a biography just fills me with otaku-shame at how inadequate it is and all the thousands of ways it could be ameliorated. In time, in time.
Appreciate you keeping the house in order over at the ATF; alas, it never quite reached the self-sustaining critical mass we could have hoped for. Skomorokh 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"Never"? I prefer "not yet". I think that if the word was put out in a few places, volunteers will stream in. We can't be surprised if the ATF hits a nadir period, if active recruitment is not constant. Most non-Wiki editors don't know about discussion pages, user pages, and Wikiproject dynamics, much less know that there are particular groups they might be interested in participating in. They assume that editing Wikipedia is a project in which one must stand alone. We need to make sure anarchists don't make that mistake. --Cast (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost editorship[edit]

Good luck with the Signpost! Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I meant what I wrote – there is so much to confront in our community for those willing to give voice... Skomorokh 17:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost deadline[edit]

Regarding your most recent note at the Newsroom, I think it's an excellent idea to change the publication deadline/date. We're not publishing time-sensitive information (if we were, the Signpost would not be a weekly), nor is there significant competition to the Signpost, so slipping things by 24 hours would not negatively impact our readers (and readership) to any measurable extent. But it would allow twice as much time (after the Sunday midnight reporting cutoff) to put out an issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, I'll try to reply at the Signpost talkpage later. Skomorokh 17:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

template loops[edit]

could you fix Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/ITN and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload/NAN to eliminate the template loop? If you aren't sure how to, let me know, and I can do it for you, but I don't want to introduce a new bug. You probably just need an "includeonly" tag somewhere. Frietjes (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't know how, but they seem to work fine as is. Skomorokh 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I will see what I can do, I am trying to keep them out of Category:Template loop warnings. Let me know if I introduce a new bug. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your inquiry[edit]

Hello, Skomorokh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(Actually 2 emails) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to e.c. you[edit]

Kindle Touch.

The Distributed Encyclopedia

the INFO Network Tony (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

the Nieman Journalism Lab Tony (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done the first one, as organic article growth seems likely. Are you sure about the INFO one? They sound like nutters. Nieman and TDE deserve articles, so leaving redlinks for now for growth. Skomorokh 09:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well done: it's a lot of work getting publications out! On my talk page already. Tony (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, just saw your thread at Tinu's page: any trouble getting the Edwards bot to run interwiki? We have more than 100 customers in other WPs, and some of those targets are for centralised pages (the Dutch, at least). Tony (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye, EdwardsBot doesn't recognise the managing editors as authorised although we seem to be on the list on meta just as here. Have left a note with MZMcBride, the bot operator. Skomorokh 11:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
EdwardsBot has been placated, his run completed, publication finished, and all was well in the jungle. Now to get some sleep. Skomorokh 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Singpost Global delivery[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction to your summary at Signpost[edit]

Hi Skomorokh. In your summary of arbitration proceedings, I think you meant to write that no edits had been made to the evidence page of the abortion case in the last three weeks and not the workshop page. It's not that important. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference?! I know almost nothing of the mechanics of arbitration, mea culpa. Classic case of editor left to write the story when all the journalists are away, very sorry I'll correct that now. Skomorokh 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost[edit]

Please see User_talk:Jorgenev#Concern_about_your_coverage_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism. --Kleinzach 04:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Skomorokh 12:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/Arbitration report[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/Arbitration report, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/Arbitration report and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/Arbitration report during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about confusion over Signpost[edit]

Hi Skomorokh,

Sorry about the confusion this week over Signpost, and over my lack of communication. I quit my job last week and am just trying to get my life in order, and the past two days, I've had off as a sort of holiday at home to recover from life getting a bit hectic. Face-smile.svg I'm trying to have some time away from computer screens and e-mail and all that before life gets very busy again very quickly. Because of this my contributions to things like Signpost and Wikimedia projects more generally are all a bit "fire and forget"-ish. Thanks for your patience. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tom, sorry for getting back to you so late on this (I have been similarly, if less gravely, afflicted by timesucking IRL developments). No need to apologise whatsoever, your personal life must come first. Any *ping* tommorris are you there tommorris??? sort of IRC japery has only been me desperately seeking competent reporters so that we might get an issue out on time; feel free to submit "fire-and-forget" stuff, but if you could mention your future intentions while you're at it (i.e. "don't touch, leave for Tom" vs. "feel free to take over from here"), that would be really helpful. Hope to see you back in the newsroom (or perhaps on the 13th?) soon. Best, Skomorokh 16:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Skomorokh! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Signpost Gmail[edit]

If you're referring to the email from Tomasz, then be relieved that he copied me in and I have already replied as an extension of previous plans for an interview. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, I am not so adept at this newfangled E-MAIL lark. Can I leave it with you or do you need input from SMasters or me? Skomorokh 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say leave it with me, except that in the past finding a mutually acceptable time has been problematic, so another interviewer may be required at some point (if we can't work something out before we get to that, which we most likely can). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Rightio, I will leave it in your capable hands for the time being (if you could cc the Signpost account on anything relevant that would help). Cheers, Skomorokh 16:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at Trusilver's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:India_Education_Program#Signpost_report.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Signpost delivery typo[edit]

I'm sure you've already noticed, but just in case... --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, did LivingBot malfunction or did you optionally choose to replace it? I'm happy to fix it if it's broken.
Also, if you hadn't noticed your edit notice is now also broken (insofar as it tries to display REVISIONUSER, which is now blank during editing). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 14:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, two problems that have been plaguing the mailing list announcements in recent weeks appear to have been resolved: the nasty encoding problem with the subject line has vanished [4] and the automatic forwarding to Foundation-l seems to work again[5]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up all; I published manually this week as the bot had a freeze-out problem (something like 'another editor has locked the publication process x minutes ago') that kept taking the process back to step 1; this issue was responsible for the multiple mailing list submissions in previous weeks. As regards the typo, mea culpa, human error there. Skomorokh 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Global Message Delivery version was mangled too, in a different way example - always check the diff carefully before starting the bot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "locking" feature from the bot, so you can now rely on it once again - it no longer makes the sorts of typos that humans make. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
That's great, I was going to ask you to implement something along those lines (the prospect of simultaneous publication seemed unlikely under our current arrangements). The typos I made in this week's delivery were deplorable, made the publication look unprofessional. Do you imagine this might re-introduce the mailing list problems HaeB mentioned? Skomorokh 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The mailing list stuff should be fine, except for the encoding error, which I've just now "fixed" by changing it from a proper dash to a double hyphen. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 13:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your message about the block of jorgenev. I have thought carefully about what you said, and replied on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello. I am assuming that you are one of the ACE2011 coordinators. PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) made less than 150 contributions to wikipedia articles before 1 November 2011, so is probably ineligible to run for election. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ciao, Mathsci. I am indeed on board for ACE2011, but as I don't currently have reliable internet access I am probably not the chap you want in a time-sensitive matter. The other coordinators are listed here, but a post to the election talkpage would probably be the best option for similar issues in future (and indeed, such a post has resulted in the removal of Paolo's candidacy as per the eligibility criteria). Regards, Skomorokh 09:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life[edit]

It is always nice to be polite and not call people's actions "ridiculous." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I decline to take unsolicited advice on how to be "nice" from someone willing to trash the work of others without bothering to do cursory research on it first, "friend". Skomorokh 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

resource request[edit]

Hi Skomorokh,

I've responded to your request for an article from The New Yorker. You can find a link to the article over at WP:RX. Best, GabrielF (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Gabriel, have done so. Skomorokh 15:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Newsletter[edit]

The blog issue sounds weird; as for the foundation-l lack of post, it seems the auto-forward is on the blip again. Are we to have to second guess every time? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Beats me. Do you know who we could get in touch with to sort the auto-forward out? The blog issue can be fixed manually if it re-occurs, but still puzzling. Skomorokh 16:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project[edit]

Just in case it isn't on your watchlist, there is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Nice to meet you last Sunday. this is the point of the exercise. The original table, which feeds off the talk pages of the articles, had far too many articles which weren't really philosophy. What is the 'Anarchist task force'? Does it judge which articles fall under philosophy and which do not? Anarky is a comic book, as far as I can make out. We now have the situation where the pitifully few top philosophy articles in Wikipedia include a comic book. Oh well. I won't die in a ditch for that one. I will revert back once, and then up to you.Quisquiliae (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Philosophy, whose banner you have been removing, has a number of sub-entities called task forces, one of which is the Anarchism Task Force, which covers all articles related to anarchism and uses the same banner (with |anarchism=yes for tracking). All articles related to anarchism are thus under the purview of WikiProject Philosophy and should not be removed. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 19:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Skomorokh, thanks so much for your efforts here. I really appreciate it. That said, Quisquiliae, checking your contribution history, it seems you've gone on something of a trigger happy rampage. You've removed dozens are WikiProject Philosophy related articles from the project on the basis that they weren't related to... I'm not sure. Your interpretation of philosophy? You removed Transhumanism (contemporary philosophy), Mary Wollstonecraft (modern and literary philosophy), Hippocrates (Ethics!), The Illuminatus! Trilogy (Anarchist and literary philosophy), and with no justification beyond your simple statement "not a philosophy article", regardless of the article content. I'll have to revert many of these edits, each silly on their very face. Thank you for being bold, but please take this to the WikiProject Philosophy talk page before making such rash decisions in the future.--Cast (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

<---------------- Let me explain. I was looking at this page which classifies 'Philosophy articles' according to quality and importance as Wikipedians see it. It works by searching for the Wikiproject philosophy template. Including articles like Anarky, which is about a comic strip character, and The Illuminatus! Trilogy, which is a work of science fiction, and probably conspiracy theory (?) is odd, on my view. Transhumanism seems odd as well.

But anyway, I was looking into this as part of research for my book on Wikipedia. One of the themes of the book is the difficulty that Wikipedia has with philosophy. I won't make any more edits. Thanks for your remarks, Cast. This has been very educational! Sorry to cause difficulties. Quisquiliae (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Peace and wikilove

Quisquiliae (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Skomorokh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Quisquiliae (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

last-minute racehorses[edit]

Aren't they rotters: I have a horrid feeling the numbers will expand after publication. If this happens, would it be appropriate to add the extras, change the numbers, and reword that phrase to past tense? Possibly a note at the botom of the story in italics saying it's been updated? Tony (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Post-publication changes are a headache, have been wrestling with the issue for the forthcoming draft Signpost editorial policy. I think in this case that's the way to go, with a header of sorts (rather than a footer) indicating it's a dynamic story; the only thing is that the header/subtitle can't change, so they will need to be vague enough to cover any plausible eventualities. Skomorokh 13:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'll go in and suggest a non-numerical page by-line. The story title could be changed by upping the number, I guess. Or if you're uncomfortable, an italicised note could be left at the bottom announcing late entrants. Tony (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The headlines get sent out in non-editable form (email, social media, talkpage notices etc.) at the time of publication; it would reflect poorly on the newspaper if a reader clicking on a link found the title had changed, I think. Skomorokh 13:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


It's coming together a lot easier then I imagined. ResMar 05:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! Are you open to comments and copyedits or would you rather another day or so to refine it? Skomorokh 13:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to improvements, it's basically written. ResMar 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Super, I'm adding some inline comments right now. I really think you have something here. Skomorokh 16:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right! 7k of comments for your 8.5k essay :D. Plenty to work on in the coming days I think! Feel free to ping me if you want to query or discuss anything I've written. Skomorokh 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon my scepticism Peter, but I'll be interested in it when it produces results or at least viable proposals. Until then it's just another talking shop. Skomorokh 18:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of the proposals are still in my head, but I am working on getting them on paper. These things take time, unfortunately. I have a lot of ideas (like DRN) but things are best improved when more heads are put together. That's my take on it, anyways. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just another talking shop, but I hope it can be organized to become the central talking shop on the question, with links to all the others. Peter jackson (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

newsroom style—quotations[edit]

Hi, noticed single quotemark for paraphrasing. Is that really the case? Tony (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

<looks up> Wait what? Sven Manguard Wha? 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


I suppose that I should read the template with due care, following your correction.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Working on it[edit]

I splatted a rough draft down onto MS Word. It needs a rewrite as it is completely rough. Also it is 3000 words long (and that is still trying to be pretty judicious...not covering every slide for sure). It will shrink some in rewrite, but 500 is much less. Also, I still need to dump it into wiki and wikify it. And then you all need to edit it for the paper. going to bed now and will work on it tomorrow. Worst comes to worst, you can just report it as news link the document and then have the sections on all the criticism.

Not sure what your real deadline is. I can probably make late Sunday.

1/3 of an acre is raked of leaves though.

TCO (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Working on it, boss. Been a while since I Wiki-formatted and I am not Hemingway.TCO (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear, but the very very most I have space for, allowing for an equal length response plus background and summation, is 1500. And trust me, you want to be the one doing the cutting... Skomorokh 16:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have 500 or 1500? (It doesn't matter, just need to know. I will clean up the 3500 thing and leave it in user space and cut to whatever you say.)TCO (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Those are about the margins you have to work within, yes. The longer the piece, the less context it gets. Don't try and respond to every minor criticism; it will have more weight with focus. Skomorokh 17:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
500 or 1500?TCO (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Minimum/maximum. Skomorokh 18:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's 1000 words. I'm going to just go with the top of the essay and then have a link back to my userpage for crit responses. That will be tighter anyway (essay and crits, but not me having anticipated rebuttals in the newspaper). Let me know where to dump it. I am still prose editing the crit responses, but that should not affect you. When do you slug the type? TCO (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, stick it here, under "Yes" (don't worry about the rest of the page, the content is very provisional). Skomorokh 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Will do. BTW, My Internet is flickering on/off. So do whatever you need to do to hit the presses in case I can't respond to a message from you.TCO (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. I would like a recommendation for an election of FA director/delegates to remain if possible (doesn't need a bold). It's a major recommendation that I had for fixing FA, in the PowerPoint. That you cut the several paragraphs of justification is fine. Probably looked worse than what I want to get accross. There's actually nothing personal. (I'm neither amused nor intimidated by the harsh reaction and ready for more. [but interested in facts or insights that come up.] IOW I am calm.) I just think it would be a very simple, easy step with big benefits, even if the same people elected. (and there is the Raul abscense from FA, director in title but not action). If you can include it in a calm manner, I appreciate it. And it would be the opinion of the editorialist, not of you. Some things are "hard". But an election is easy (just a process step). Even if other people don't like it, it is a proposal.TCO (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to have a crack at re-integrating that, but it would have to be a comment on the structure and not allusions to the current personnel. The other major issue is the FA writing section which still focuses on two editors in a way that devalues the contributions of one; if you can't secure their consent, do you think you could rewrite it without the identification-focus? Skomorokh 02:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I disagree that it looks squeezed, and moreover, columns was part of the format before this debate came up on our radar, and for one good reason; it's fairer looking. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, where is the opposing viewpoint? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The text on my laptop was about an inch and a half wide and twenty times as long; awkward reading. How do you mean about columns being part of the format before?
I'm amenable to a side by side presentation, with two caveats; it can't be a fixed limit given the diversity of screens it will be viewed on and secondly, will any column presentation be unreadable on smaller screens?
The editors who indicated interest in writing a rebuttal now seems to have backed it; it remains to be seen if we will have a viable piece, but if not this week perhaps the next. Skomorokh 02:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to do the columns as a percentage. 50%/50% would be ideal, but I don't know how to.
Have you asked Sandy Georgia? I'd be more than happy to. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not all that hot on templates either; try the help desk maybe?
Last I checked the last time you and Sandy discussed potential SP contributions it didn't go so smoothly. The atmosphere is a bit incendiary at the moment so I think I might leave it off a while and ask one of the more mellow contemplative responders at WT:FAC. Skomorokh 03:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It certainly didn't :) Sven got quite upset, in fact, and spread his upset all over the place-- I remained silent after that. :) IMO, it makes no sense at all for me to write a rebuttal when TCO is effectively "calling for my head"-- that would be a conflict, and wouldn't best serve FAC. I've already gone too far in even pointing out (only partially) the flaws in his analysis (there is SO much more, but I don't have unlimited time); if he had attacked me, I would have been obliged by COI to stay silent and let others assess my role, but he has demoralized the troops, so I felt obliged to speak up-- particularly since my FA stats qualify me to speak up as one of his "champions" or whatever stupid label it was. But having me do the rebuttal would simply be wrong, when it's basically my head he's calling for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm with you on that one. You have already dedicated a great deal of your time to responding to all this, and it would not be in anyone's interest to ask you to try to consider the question in a detached sense given the unfortunate personalising of the issues we have seen. Skomorokh 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just had a thought on the fairness question; might it be a good idea to implement a randomisation feature such as the one in {{ACE2011}}, so one or the other side appeared on top by chance depending on each loading of the page? Skomorokh 03:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer columns, where no matter what the question is, yes goes on the left and right goes on the no. I'd rather have consistency and a static page. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Randomizing or columns doesn't solve the problem that he has still been allowed to define the agenda and the discussion, and the wrong questions-- based on faulty premises-- are being asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking forthrightly[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at Resident Mario's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Dear Skomorokh, With regards to your email regarding the signpost (ITN), I would be more than happy to help as a contributor. I will however be studying for exams at the same time though, so there will be some times when I won't be able to (See User:Thomas888b for details of when), For example, Due to other commitments, I won't be able to start until Monday 19/12/11. After this date, I will endeavour to return to writing ITN.
Thanks -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, that's great news. Look forward to seeing you later in the month! Regards, Skomorokh 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship#RfC: Should we begin a trial? can be mentioned in SP?

Sorry, I should probably have asked on some SP-suggestion-page, but it's a bit last-minute, so I thought this might be more effective.  Chzz  ►  10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Special report (SP)[edit]

Hi, looks really good; but unless you're writing it off-wiki preparing to dump it at the page, I wonder whether it's good to go next week instead. Fascinating, multi-levelled, should be a game-changer or at least a jolt to the community. Tony (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the most likely outcome, but it's already been left over last week and I'm a little worried about the story breaking elsewhere so that it's old news by the time it hits the Signpost. I'd really appreciate any input or suggestions you might have, as it's obvious still at the planning stage. Skomorokh 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
News gets stale. Think you are close enough.TCO (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Two things: the backwards and fowards links on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-28/Featured content appear to be broken, and we should leave a note to readers telling them to pay attention to next week's special issue. ResMar 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Your optimism lifts my spirits ;) I'll get a chance to review the FC report once I've written ITN and Arb. Skomorokh 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting saddled with work this week so finishing off N&N is all I have time for :~). Next week should be a great issue methinks. ResMar 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Partially responded to your other query on my talk, but I really half-arsed it, sorry :) At least some TPS may engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries; it's not for my benefit, I simply thought you would be interested on what Sue Gardner was basing her views upon. Skomorokh 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty of interfacing with the Signpost[edit]

I'm finding it difficult to interface with the Signpost. The entry points to getting content published seem obscure, and the community surrounding it doesn't appear to be engaged in itself. Finding the Opinion Desk was a marathon, and as someone out of FAC/FAR I assume I've got decent navigation skills. Just a note to the editor that you might want to consider. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Signpost pages are for reference & occasional updating; we work autonomously and off-wiki for the most part, with the coordinating done by the managing editors. Reader engagement is overwhelmingly done via comments on articles, email and WT:POST. I will be doing some rationalisation of the links and navigation and whatnot, but we're operating on a skeleton crew at the moment and don't have anyone with design chops. So I can't promise that's going to get much better any time soon. Is there anything I can help you directly with? Skomorokh 07:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I am drafting an OPED in relation to the quality versus quantity debate in terms of the post-capitalist analysis of Wikipedia's economic role as a production unit and an exchange unit. (I found the page to link to for that, eventually, because of comments posted in the social fall out of this whole debate.) I don't expect it will be published for reasons other than editorial bias against the politics I express, reasons like my contribution being oblique, specialist, economist, or not centrally connected to the social dispute; but, I found it difficult to determine where to contribute it. Sending mail to Letters at the Times is easy, even if they reject you. Obviously I'm indicating the difficulty in figuring out how to get comments published in the formal Signpost par publication. I assume (I'm a single page reader), that the individual articles have normal talk pages :) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sounds very interesting. You can draft it in userspace and post it at Wikipedia:OPDESK#Submissions, or simply email it, when you're ready. The individual articles have talkpages, yes. Again, I'm sorry about the convoluted navigation, but there's not a lot I can do about it right now. Looking forward to reading your op-ed :) Skomorokh 08:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
As for the requirements, they're being worked on at the moment, as this is really the first major push in as far back as I remember to make opinion pieces a regular, recruited for, occurrence. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this edit[6] to this week's signpost - the funniest piece of well written prose I've seen for quite a while! Wittylama 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Liam, I enjoyed writing it rather a lot too :) Skomorokh 15:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ghost of Arbitrations Past...[edit]

I was wondering what you make of this: [7]. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm not sure whether to take the bait, because I think the topic's articles have improved rather a lot since the case (or at least the Rand article has). Could get a Checkuser or Arbitration Committee enforcement to look at it if you thought it worth the trouble. Skomorokh 13:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

op-ed ran/didn't?[edit]

Sko: I didn't really read the bruhaha (didn't read it, after the "other side" had their Gorbatai gotcha blowup in their faces). You know I dropped off the piece you asked for, busting it out on a weekend, and was not a prima donna on your edits. I guess you were pressured into not running it? I think your instincts were right from the beginning (as a newspaperman) regardless of your take on it, to run it. Kinda concerned that outside pressure was used to affect expression. something that would be much harder with an independent press in real life. And the Wiki ethic of fighting for control of article pages probably bleeds over into fighting for control of Signpost. If the situations were reversed, I would not have mounted some campaign to stop someone from running an op-ed. Heck, one of the first things I did was say, make it fair and let them have their say. Anyhow, I'm not coming down on you since you had the right instincts and were under a lot of pressure. If you need anything from me, leave a note on my talk page.

A lot of the crits on the report (have not read the SignPost prepress debate, but saw the FAC talk up to a couple days ago) have been pretty tree for forest (nits). Things that don't change the story. FACers tend to be detail people, not strategists. But the story doesn't change (and for example Ucucha made this point: 'found a couple things, doesn't change your point'. Study is honest work and not trying to pose for something that it isn't. It would change in format, but some things I have been told are publishable in a peer-reviewed journal. Th 4 box especially and the whole issue of social incentives ("star collecting") to work on the trivial topics.

BTW, if you feel that I as author need to respond to some outside concerns before running a piece, let me know.TCO (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TCO, thanks for checking in. I didn't run it last edition because it wasn't ready, primarily because of a lack of a proper second half of a debate (two paragraphs by two authors do not a considered rebuttal make), although there were also improvements to be made to the first part. The methodological and social issues I still need to sit down and properly look over. Trying to refocus away from personalities to the broader level of analysis, and making sure the piece was a concise, well-paced compelling argument were working at cross-purposes as I was editing it, and the drama from the popcorn gallery ended up being such a timesink that the needed rewriting became untenable for publication last Monday (the entire issue ran late). I've never been pressured into not running a story before now and I don't intend to start with this; as far as I'm concerned it's still in development mode. I'll look over it again and summarise what needs to be done when I get a chance, and we'll re-appraise from there. Sound good? Skomorokh 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Do what you think is best for the readers. Bury it. run straight news. Run a critique. Side by sides. Etc. If you need something from me, track me down. I wrote the report and then pounded out an essay when asked and didn't sweat your edits like a drama-llama. Not really planning on agitating or doing much more work, given what I did was wasted (but if you need a response or have a question, you reach out to me, capisce?). Only thing is news gets stale, so I think even a critique or straight news was justified if it was of any newsowrthiness.TCO (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate it, although I wouldn't be so quick to call your efforts thus far wasted. The news might be stale to those at the center of its reception like you and I, but to the broader community it could still have relevance. If there's any positive movement on the debate piece I'll be in touch to see if it's possible to do a worthy job of presenting the (very real and pertinent) issues fairly and squarely to the the readership. Skomorokh 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point and nice thing to say. And yeah, the other side needs to at least get their crits...organized. Has been a flail so far. I would organize them and skewer myself if I were them. I know Sandy is capable of it. That after-monopoly-game ARBCOM piece with a timeline and all was a masterpiece.Face-wink.svg
Big picture is I've looked at this thing enough different ways and with a variety of qualitiative/quantitative analysis. There's just too much there to dismiss it. And this level of work justifies business decisions all the least in any industry with any rate of evolution in products. I will definitely "Bayesian bet" that the major features of the study (the "story", the "so what", the strategic implication for us as content providers) does not change with more data, significance tests, server records instead of, etc. Plus I will bet that I have given a bunch of interesting ideas for parameters to investigate. Heck and even how to do some quick analyses.
The strange leadership situation in FAC and decline in output [both numbers of FACs and pageviews dropping dramatically, it's a double whammy, there] is kind of a confounding factor. Lack of any drive for recruiting, experimentation in processes, outreach outside of Wiki, no feedback for rejected work, and kind of a cozy "regular" situation is a concern. But really that is an on-Wiki teafight. (It's amazing how committed people are (Arbs, admins, FAC leader) to their volunteer leadership positions. But at the end of the day, Harvard Busines Review or J. Appl. Psych. or some econ journal or social media journal or whateva is going to be much more interested in the issue of social rewards and production of trivial topics. Not Raul being a figurehead or Sandy being more of a "run the process and enfoce the standard" than "evolve the process, increase output, and inspire people" type leader. Or the concern for elections (which honest, after a year or two, would totally be non-dramatic...people get so worried about change, but it would be the date delinking, something that we wonder why we ever did it different.) TCO (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


As I've already said (perhaps not clearly enough), I'll be happy go to back to attempting "inspiration" in whatever way I can via The Signpost, as we used to in the Dispatches, but not if some editorial oversighting nitwit is forcing me to work with ResMar's wriing as a starting point and under a deadline, with Tony1 letting slide deficient prose on a FAC of ResMar's because of The Signpost COI-- a FAC which then has to be carried for a month while other editors rewrote it. You may have that luxury at The Signpost, but FAC can't rewrite every article that appears there-- for that we have peer review. I've been abundantly willing to give Sk the benefit of the doubt here because of the patient tutelage he has demonstrated with ResMar, but it boggles my mind how you can meet deadlines if you start out with, well, writers who can't write (and I put myself in that category, so I wouldn't try to put out "inspirational" Dispatches unless I had a copyeditor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I re-iterate my invitation for you and your colleagues to resume Dispatches under your own direction (though answerable to the managing editors, as with any publication), written by whomever you can get to do it; I think this would be a very important and educationally effective development. As to deadlines and writers, without any disrespect to the hardworking volunteers who do contribute, we don't have the luxury of a vast pool of reporters to choose from – two columns of last week's issue I had to write entirely myself, in addition to reviewing and (inadequately) copyediting the rest, as there were no reporters available despite repeated outreach efforts. I'd like to be a hands-off, big-picture editor but that wouldn't be consistent with getting a substantial edition out on deadline with our current resources. You work with what you've got. Any help or suggestion on this front would be most appreciated. 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
That, at least, is an advance over either a) the position formerly taken by Signpost leadership, or b) the position I perceived, when I felt I was being forced to let ResMar's work run in the Dispatches subject to tight deadlines, or alternately, shut them down if I wasn't willing to submit to that heavy-handed leadership. I understand the limitations you work under, and respect your patient tutelage, but the message I was getting back then was "either run the crap, or close shop, because we have deadlines". FCDW never published anything that wasn't ready: it was my pride and joy because I got the best folks to work on them, and they didn't go out until they were good. Let's see how things shake out from here, and revisit whether we can re-launch Dispatches after the holidays (unless the "quality" naysayers and POV pushers on articles that interest me convince me to give up before then :) I can tell you that since prose is also a weakness of mine, I won't complicate that even further by having ResMar as part of the editors "staffing" it. I need people helping who can write better than I can, Tony1 used to copyedit, but he was set off when I questioned (per the Essjay controversy) why the Features and Admins section of the Signpost was repeating without any means of verification claims made by admins about who they were in real life-- hence, I lost a friend and a copyeditor after he went nuts over a relatively minor difference of opinion, and sided with ResMar over the Dispatches. Let's see how things go from here on, but darn it, I hate the way things always heat up during the holiday season, just when I have so many real life commitments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Placing this here as it's somewhat relevant: I just wanted to make sure you have seen all three of my requests for you to clarify what you want from FA writers and any direction you may be able to provide in how the Signpost is going to be treating the TCO presentation. Two days ago, yesterday, and today. Even an acknowledgment that you have seen these requests would be nice. Ideally, clarifying this information would be best. Or at least telling us why you are unable or unwilling to clarify how the Signpost is going to treat this. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you have to offer? Seriously? Why should I spend my spare time superfluously justifying myself to someone who has made not even a cursory effort at understanding anything I write? Skomorokh 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is rather painful spending one's leisure time justifying one's volunteer contributions to someone who has not made a cursory effort at understanding them, isn't it? It is even worse if the critic writes an extensive report that misrepresents those poorly understood contributions as symptomatic of a malaise that they have completely misdiagnosed.
It hurts to be misunderstood in a specific incident. To be misunderstood and misrepresented for your every contribution and your dedication to the project hurts even more. Geometry guy 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't quite make out whether the line is that the original study was worthless or mortally wounding; whichever hyperbole is most self-serving? I'm neither hurt nor in pain, nor do I believe my fellow FA writers and reviewers have such little self-respect to be thus moved. Again I query what constructive purpose these comments are supposed to have. Skomorokh 02:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You can recalibrate any "hyperbole" to your own scale (and your own unbelievably hyperbolic edit summary and comment): "hurt -> frustration/irritation", perhaps? "pain -> annoyance"? Such recalibration makes no difference. All my comments on this issue, including this one, have struck chords with other editors, and it is because they are based on the principles that inspired most of us to start contributing to Wikipedia in the first place. This is what the WMF and other "customer" oriented analyses apparently fail to appreciate. Geometry guy 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Offer? Are you asking for money? Or something else? I do not understand your response in any way. I don't know how to make it clearer that I don't understand how this piece may run in the Signpost or IF it may run. I'm completely confused about what your role, any potential role I may take, or anyone else's role is in this entire episode. You not only have not clarified anything, but you seem to be appalled at my lack of comprehension in something you refuse to clarify and I must somehow appease you with an offering to warrant this clarification. I don't really know what the enormous chasm between these problems exists: confused→explain. I feel like Allen Funt is nearby. --Moni3 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Skomorokh, you ask why you should spend your spare time replying to Moni3. I think you should, because as Signpost editor you have control or influence over a flow of information that has a significant impact on the Wikipedia community, and I think the responsibility to answer reasonable questions about that role comes with the territory. If you're concerned that they're not reasonable questions, then I can give you a character reference for Moni3, though I've never worked on articles with her. She is a prolific and dedicated writer of high-quality content and I believe her to be genuinely interested in understanding the answers to her questions. I can't speak to her opinion of TCO, or you, or the current brouhaha, but I feel strongly she is engaging with you in good faith. I wouldn't blame you if you felt somewhat under siege but I don't think you should regard Moni3 as an enemy; I believe she really does want to know the answers to her questions, and I believe you have a responsibility to answer good-faith questions about your role in the Signpost. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have worked with Moni3 on at least one FA, and you're exactly right. Moni3 isn't the enemy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have also worked with Moni3 and am fully aware that she is an excellent writer and diligent researcher. I don't have any "enemies" on Wikipedia because I'm not twelve years old. Skomorokh 03:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Just luck I guess. I'm not twelve years old either, but I have loads of enemies, more than you could shake a stick at. Malleus Fatuorum 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You should stop wasting time replying to Moni3. Replies with pejorative terminology such as "the line," "hyperbole" "not made a cursory" serve to inflame and escalate rather than answer. I'm seeking clarification on the questions at hand to give you the opportunity to answer once in a clear respective manner. This will save you time in the long run. Note I'd consider an answer like "That decision is an internal, editorial decision of The Signpost and we chose not to discuss it now." clear and respectful. Gerardw (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


What was this intended to be?

A: A debate, commissioned for potential publication in the Signpost.

What's a debate?

A: You know, a debate. Multiple writers opining on a topical issue.

What's your involvement?

A: I am the editor. It is my job to commission opinion pieces and to facilitate their improvement to a publishable standard, where possible.

What's a publishable standard?

A: For single author pieces, that they are on a relevant topic and compellingly argued, fundamentally. For a debate piece, roughly equal length submissions of opposing perspectives with same. There are more considerations, but those are the basics.

When are you publishing this one then?

A: When it's of a publishable standard.

Is it of publishable standard now?

A: No.

Why didn't you say all this before?

A: I did. Repeatedly.

Why did I ask anyway?

A: I honestly haven't the slightest.

Where do we go from here?

A: Nowhere without submissions of opinion pieces, which the raucous and opinionated commentariat have singularly failed to step up to do.

I am hurt by something I perceived you or the opinion piece to express.

A: It's not my job to mind your feelings, I edit a newspaper. I haven't expressed my feelings with regard to the topic because my feelings on it are irrelevant, nobody cares, nor should they.

I'm not happy with the draft of the opinion piece.

A: Suggest improvements to the author, or feel free to submit your own piece. You will be given as fair a hearing as anyone else. Nonproductive complaints will not.

You owe me things.

A: I fail to see how I owe you anything.

You're not showing deference to our opinions on this issue.

A: You don't dictate what runs in the Signpost. The volunteer contributors do. We are always looking for new blood. If you want influence, volunteer, contribute.

I don't like the line the Signpost seems to be taking on things.

A: Judge us on what we publish. All else is practice.

You're a complaint here.

A: Thanks for playing. Skomorokh 03:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

When commissioning a debate, who determines the wording of the question? Gerardw (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC) A: The commissioner, typically, and in this case. Skomorokh 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't there two commissioners in a debate?Gerardw (talk) 03
46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A: Please clarify your question. Op-eds (although we do not run op-eds) are typically commissioned by a newspaper's editorial board; the closest thing for the Signpost are the managing editors, of which I am the sole active member. Skomorokh 12:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some additional questions. Personally, I believe you've addressed the first couple and have taken a stab at putting answers in. Please feel free to disregard WP:TPG and edit my answers as appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the TCO opinion piece, will the Signpost be presenting a news story which covers the context and methodology of the study?

A: The question assumes the Signpost will be publishing an opinion piece by TCO; if you had read the answers above, you would not assume this to be true. Publishing any story depends on writers first writing it; though suggested, the news reporters did not consider the study worthy of attention in last week's issue. We cannot publish what doesn't exist.

What input do you want from the Featured Article (FA) community regarding the TCO opinion piece?

A: Initially, the idea was for an equal-length response, critiquing or rebutting the notion that Wikipedia's high-end content writers and processes are neglecting core/vital topics. We had hoped for a writer familiar with GAN/A-class review/FAC/PR. No other input was asked for, although constructive commentary to improve the quality of draft opinion essays is always welcome.

When should the larger Wikipedia community consider the TCO opinion piece in nearly final form and ready for review?

A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written.

Your implicit accusation the asker of the question is lazy or stupid does not help move the conversation along in a positive manner.
When it's of a publishable standard is vague and subjective. It's publishable when you, the editors of the The Signpost say it is. Let me rephrase the question: Is it your intent to explicitly notify the community when it's of a publishable standard?Gerardw (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
When is the deadline for feedback from the FA community?

A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written. Skomorokh 12:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have not read an answer to the question or did not understand that you were answering it when you did; could you post a diff? Gerardw (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The development of opinion essays involves neither deadlines (unless the author(s) want it in a particular edition) nor public vetting or approval. I've made this abundantly clear, on several occasions, for no reasons that have helped the work of my writers but purely as a courtesy to mostly belligerent interlocutors, and I am quite frankly past the point of losing patience doing so. We want people to submit opinion pieces, we don't ask for anything else, and we don't publish anything that isn't fit for it. End of. Skomorokh 13:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking the FA community for a response to the prompt "are vital articles being neglected at the top?" independent of TCO's opinion piece? If so, are you asking for a response independent of TCO's powerpoint [8], or would you like the response to specifically address it? Gerardw (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
As many have pointed out, the powerpoint strayed from the topic to its detriment in a few respects, so reactions to the broader question rather than the powerpoint specifically is what I had in mind, though obviously it's not free of context. Skomorokh 14:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

() Thank you for taking the time to continue to address these questions; I feel like we're about 90% of the way there. As it isn't my goal to pester to you death, regardless of how it might seem, let me offer these comments and be on my way:

I understand your op-ed policy to be The Signpost is a quality newspaper and we don't publish crap; therefore we simply won't publish a piece that is not quality -- it can wait until a future issue. While this is a good policy for individual pieces, it doesn't really fit NY Times style debate you've linked above. The whole idea to publish all the responses together so the reader can compare and contrast, right? This implies there needs to be some sort of deadline; otherwise one good pieced might go stale while the latter piece is brought up to publishing standards. It's also problematic if the opposing editors are reading each other's pieces and changing their's in reaction; I'm sure the NY Times receives the pieces independently. I know you addressed this when I asked before but it doesn't seem well thought out because of sequencing issues. If A and B are both editing and neither know when exactly both pieces will be fit for publication and go to press, it implies a burden to be constantly polishing and adjusting their essays or risk being the less compelling argument when published.

Given the recent evidence of how contentious this issue is for many, the more explicitly you can state your expectations regarding the powerpoint the better. In other words, I'd suggest either: 'just address the topic question' or 'include analysis of the powerpoint.'

I understand that from your perspective you've been clear. Given the volume and timing of the responses that have been going on, it hasn't been clear from mine. For example, in a reply to Truthkeeper [[9]] you said 'Time is not a luxury,' which appears to be contrary to your much appreciated direct answer here. I know you weren't being deceptive or anything -- so logically that statement is true and consistent with your others -- just in a different context (which I didn't get). The point is not to play "gotcha," --a he said, she said, I said rehash would be a waste of time -- but try to explain why we've been confused, to explain why it seems like we're lazy or stupid. We're really not.Gerardw (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You make good points about the difficulties in developing debate pieces; this was our first exploration of the format, and we'll experiment with different approaches if we decide it's worth our time to pursue the format further. That said, pressure to refine and polish essays are more likely than not to increase the quality of debate. I don't agree that debates imply deadlines, and I don't see how there's anything inconsistent about my position that time is not a luxury i.e. there's plenty of it as quality is the single axis of progress. Skomorokh 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. This just goes to show how easily different interpretation of language can confuse things -- I always thought "time is not a luxury" meant things had to get done right away, so I asked Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#time_is_not_a_luxury and got a similar answer. Thanks for the clarification. Gerardw (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
First chance I've had to get to this. So I appreciate the answers--most of them. Some of those questions I never asked. I know what a debate is. If you stated this all before, I missed it. And I'm not hurt by you or TCO. I don't know who asked or said that. And the owing people things... That's just more confusing.
At any rate, I think we've had a first class communication clusterfuck. I'll take my blame for it, but only if I can share it with Skomorokh. I knew nothing of what was going to be published in the Signpost apart from the vague statement Skomorokh made at WT:FAC, which is to say *something* was to be published. When I saw TCO adding his contribution, I assumed the Signpost was publishing only TCO's side, which I think anyone who read my reaction took it to mean I strongly disapprove. That's accurate, no surprise. Without clarification on any different format from what appeared in the Signpost sandbox, I had nothing else to go on. I was only watching the Signpost sandbox and WT:FAC, and WT:FAC not very diligently. So I don't know what made you think you had clarified any of it or stated it repeatedly. I never saw it.
Assuming all the responses are as forthright as possible, and there's no sarcasm (when there's clearly sarcasm), then I take the following to be accurate--and feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood:
  • The Signpost will only publish an objective story on TCO's presentation if someone writes it. I get the impression that nobody has written or offered to write it.
  • The Signpost will only publish an editorial--basically what is in the Signpost sandbox in a cleaner format, copy edited and professional--if FA writers respond. If there is a real debate.
  • Therefore, if no one comes forward to write either an objective story or the debate, nothing will be published. Is it accurate to say that if we remain as lazy as possible, nothing will appear in the Signpost about TCO's presentation?
So, thank you for clarifying what you did. Please clarify further if my understanding is lacking. To be as clear as possible, I suggest communicating without sarcasm, bluster, hyperbole, idioms (time is not a luxury--just state "there is no deadline") and repeated references to previous answers without diffs. I will do the same. Short and blunt as possible. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Signpost. You cite this diff, where I make reference to both a news story and "a collaborative Opinion piece between the study's author and their interlocutors; something along the lines of a statement and defence of the study's key points, followed by critical responses, and perhaps a third section on what important questions the affair raises".
You respond to this proposal by writing at WT:FAC "According to Skomorokh, the Signpost will be addressing the study. Skomorokh doesn't make very clear in what way it will be addressed". Not credible.
Later in that thread, I write "we are quite understaffed at present so the factual reporting on this piece I will likely conduct myself", and "I'm not taking a stance on [the argument], but I think the broader community deserves to hear the very best arguments in favour and against it, and so I am here in the hopes of recruiting those best capable of articulating them."
So, a reasonably alert reader will have gleaned that I intended on running a news story on the analysis, which if I couldn't get one of my reporters to do I hoped to do myself, that I also wanted a collaborative opinion piece by the author of the study and its critics, covering the arguments for and against, and that I was at WT:FAC to recruit authors of it. This is all on of before Nov 24.
Fast forward to the state of the debate draft before TCO added his contribution to it: here. As you can see, the page heading reads "Vital articles debate". Now as you've said, you know what a debate is, namely a formal argument between multiple parties with different points of view. Below that is sketches for background material for the debate. Below that, in double sized font are "YES" and "NO" responses to the question posed.
Now, FAC editors are intelligent folks, and in order to understand the above before commenting, all the effort that is required is to read the discussion at WT:FAC, follow the links posted, and give a cursory inspection of the history of the page they were passing comment on. I don't consider this onerous, I consider this the minimum level in engagement of an issue in order not to be willfully ignorant in voicing one's thoughts.
Now, with all that in mind, this is your read on it.
Why am I doing this again? Skomorokh 13:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how much value there is in my participation in this anymore. You seem to think...I don't know what you think and it would be inappropriate for me to assume. All I know is the last time I had so much difficulty communicating with another editor it was a bad situation all around. I fully admit (and did in my previous comment) I came on with a lot of bluster in the heat of passion, as I tend to do at times. However, I was and still remain not the only editor confused by just about everything associated with the Signpost sandbox. And you again declined in your comment just now to clarify or answer my attempts to make sure I understood these issues by responding with irrelevant commentary that I cannot and should not address.
In case we decide to part ways and edit happily never crossing paths again, tips: if an editor says s/he's confused, clarify it immediately as plainly as possible. Put a box at the top of the page in question (in this case, the Signpost sandbox) to answer any confusion. Don't spread clarifying comments across multiple pages and expect they will be read. This episode got blown out of proportion for several reasons, among them my own behavior, but also because you are not communicating simply and clearly. Refusing to clarify issues gives editors the impression that you do not know the answers or you consider the editors unimportant enough to spend the time giving them.
You seem frustrated to me, although you may be peaceful and serene. I am also frustrated with several things about this set of circumstances so I understand your experiences, for whatever that's worth. I'm not asking for a reply. It might be better for any constructive action here not to rehash this. If other editors understand what's going on, good for them. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


Can't we all just get along?  :) Sk, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the difficulty folks are having in understanding how The Signpost works. I understood it a bit more perhaps than some others because of previous work on the Dispatches, but it is hard for others to follow, the questions are sincere, so I'm sorry to see you becoming so frustrated. Some of The Signpost pages can be as difficult to sort out as DYK is (I believe some one pointed that out earlier on this page), and I think a lot of folks just weren't clear how to proceed early on, which led to some of the <agida> for lack of a better word. But, history ... the Dispatches worked, yet were criticized for being developed off of the Signpost pages, when that was done precisely so that they could be polished without the threat of deadlines. We can all learn here.

The take-home message I see (wrong or right?) is that a reboot of the entire format, premise etc of the draft as it now stands is not out of the question. I believe that most were frustrated that an editor with a blocklog comparable to <he-who-will-not-be-named, whose name always comes up in reference to his blocklog>, and who has a history of disruption, and who is still calling other good faith editors "mother fuckers" and "crufty rule mongers" in an edit war (the kind of behaviors that led to his block log), was allowed a platform from which to advance his highly personalized essay based on data of dubious value. As I've said all along, you can't get a dispassionate response from what started out as something highly personalized (we can't get there from here), or in the words of others, there's no way to polish this turd without removing the entire crux of his argument (which editing of the draft did).

I hope others have a better understanding now that you perhaps never intended it to go out in anything close to what was originally placed on the draft page, but please realize that most folks didn't know that early on. What remains to be seen is if someone will reboot the whole thing by writing what should have been written all along-- a dispassionate and non-personalized analysis of the issue of "important" articles among top content and what Wikipedia or WMF can do to facilitate rather than denigrate top content production. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Signpost's internal mechanics being difficult to understand, two points: one, the opinion desk is still young and experimental – guidelines and best practices are emergent phenomena and won't be tenable until we have had more experience with what works and what doesn't; secondly, unlike DYK, the Signpost is not optimised for volume and ease of mass-participation, because it's the work of perhaps half a dozen core contributors and occasional outside contributors who participation is generally in a single installment – either we ask for a submission, or one comes unsolicited. So while not making out like our processes are optimal, they have a very different focus; the content, not the talking shop. I asked for submissions to rebut the TCO piece, and while obviously I could have expressed this in a way that was simpler to understand for regular people, all that was expected of readers was to send in their 1500 words which would then be subject to some editing or back-and-forth, but no ongoing or collective engagement. I accept culpability for overestimating the straightforwardness of this proposition; I typically deal with submissions through email, and I think we will be returning to that form of collaboration in future to avoid the senseless disruption of content work that marked this episode.
Again, while I welcome alternate submissions on this topic such as the one you outline, the history to date suggests most involved are all talk and no action on that front. Skomorokh 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Until the final paragraph, I was hopeful that your response would help us all understand how the communcations snafus happened and how we could move forward. I don't believe your final conclusion is valid, I do believe it won't help the problem; you underestimate the confusion that your approach generated. You had the opportunity to engage some of the finest writers on Wikipedia on this topic-- that was a missed opportunity. I'm sorry I can't/shouldn't write the real piece myself, but that just wouldn't be appropriate.

I'm also curious: why do you refer to the self-published essay in question as a "study"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

VA piece[edit]


If you expect me to pre-debate the submitted piece, let me know. I have not been even following the conversation for a few days. It is sort of a very Wiki thing to do. But if you expected me to be a party, need to let me know. I felt like I had done my job and dropped things off. And pretty damned justified when TK called me a thief or a misrepresenter (and Sandy and Ceoil cackling like hens) and had egg on their face when the chips fell on that one.

I skimmed the numbered Sandy crit. Some of the crits are obviously off. For instance, saying that varying project grades were not addressed, for example. This absolutely is if you look on the respective slide. There is a bullet that addresses this aspect. There are some other mistakes where a crit has been made instead of a question, or where reading a deeper source would give the insight. For example with the 10-50X figure...that is coming from the Wikisym paper (is cited) and that paper had excluded all unranked articles. Reading the paper will make this clear. I know, because I printed it, parsed it, wrote all over it, coffee-stained it, etc. Also, I think Andreea already opined that I did a fair job on the two slides concerning her.

Some of the crits are really just confusion. I actually STILL don't mind if those are published as the crits, since I can knock them down so easy! But, if I am supposed to be talk page watching or participating or defending myself, let me know (that pre-press page is off my watchlist and I expect you to let me know if anything needed from me). Anyhow, main point is my quick skim did not see anything unexpected or damning in the crits. Bit of a flail, still, actually (like number 6 meandered in point). I would have skewered myself much better were I in the other team's shoes. Wink.png TCO (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. And I haven't had YOUR page on watch, so have read none of the above stuff (honest, just have not).TCO (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking in, don't worry about reading any of the above, I'll let you know if something important comes up. I wasn't planning on moving on this right now so was only going to suggest that you try to re-incorporate the FA segment (n.b. focusing on institutional/cultural factors and not anything that a reasonable reader from the other side of the issue could take personal affront to, as that is counterproductive to the exchange of ideas). However, given that the viability of the piece is dependent on someone else stepping into the ring, I'm loath to ask anything more of you right now. I expect to revisit in a few days once the drama dies down (the issue has legs, timeliness or no). I appreciate your patience. Skomorokh 12:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible opinion piece[edit]

I'd be interested in putting an opinion piece together on the topic of the relationship between WP's coverage, the WMF's global education program, and ongoing editor recruitment and retention. Briefly, I think that part of the reason for the dropoff in new editor recruitment is that the encyclopedia has grown to the point that it's hard for new editors to get involved, and that the GEP is a way to get academics involved. The GEP is being sold as a way to recruit students, but I believe it should be regarded as a way to recruit academics. This does have a tangential relationship to vital articles (however defined), because I think that if you get more editors here with deep academic knowledge of broad topics the content expansion in those areas will naturally follow. If you wanted to position this in relationship to TCO's essay, I'd say it's an argument that the problem (i.e. coverage of vital articles) is not caused by the behaviour or focus of existing content writers, it's a consequence of who we have editing the encyclopedia. If we want to edit topics that nobody is interested in working on now, the right answer is to recruit editors interested in working on them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a wonderful proposal Mike. We are focusing on the editor retention issue in Monday's edition, and the education program is an ongoing interest, so it's a very timely also. I wouldn't want it to be positioned in respect to TCO's essay, as that has a different, narrower focus. I'd very much welcome anything you can put together, and would be very interested in publishing it if possible; let me know either by email or by dropping a sandbox link at the opinion desk if you decide to move ahead with it. Skomorokh 13:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As a member of the Ambassador Steering Committee, I am willing to provide some incite into this. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great Guerillero, do you want to get in touch with Mike directly? Assuming you mean insight of course, I think we've had quite enough incite recently ;) Skomorokh 15:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This is fabulous, since Mike Christie is such a capable and thorough writer. Mike, for more "insight", see the data and discussion posted at WT:FAC-- you might be able to work that in, since the psych discussion overlaps the educational outreach issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


Sko, I emailed you about a Signpost matter. And while I think of it, perhaps the edit-summary for the distribution bot might drop the apologies unless it's really really late!? Tony (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading the former now, need to get on to Jarry about the latter. Skomorokh 11:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Spreading the Word[edit]

Hey sko. How long do I have to think of something to say in 200-300 words to go with the article on "Why Wikipedia Needs Marketers?" I have some ideas brewing. I noticed from your talk page it sounds like a monthly publication? Didn't realize at first I probably have some time. King4057 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it's a weekly, publishing on Monday at 22:00UTC (~43 hours away), so you would have until about two hours beforehand if you wanted to put a direct appeal to your fellow editors. Skomorokh 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're thinking of writing an opinion piece, it really aught to be significantly larger than 300 words. The Signpost published seven pieces this year; five were in the 1000-1200 word range, one was 450 words with a lot of pictures, and one was 500 words and written in poetry form. I'm not saying you should force a 200 word message into a 1000 word piece, but 200-300 words is going to look really tiny. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not an opinion piece, it's a quote for an story in ITN. Skomorokh 14:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a prelude quote of sorts for this blog post. The blog was written primarily for the COI audience, so I tried to make the quote put it into more of a context for the volunteer Wikipedia community. I really thought my username might be banned by now after admitting to be a sometimes paid-for COI contributor on Jimmy Wales talk page. He was the main advocate against paid editing policies in 2009 and I agree with his 2009 statement, but I think there are alternatives besides policies that would attract more quality COI contributions before edits are ever made, instead of policing them after-the-fact. Hopefully he sees that I'm really trying to help, because all this makes me look rather aggressive. Anyways, I took another quick stab at it on my talk page Skomorokh. My message is that COIs and the volunteer community can work together and make Wikipedia better. King4057 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. On an unrelated note could I interest you in writing an opinion piece?Face-wink.svg Seriously though, a side effect of working on the opinion desk and the discussion report is that I tend to see just about everything as falling under one of the two. Sorry for the confusion. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Skomorokh I came across this post suggesting that you should have asked for my opinion on the Pottinger situation. I didn't particularly agree that any obligation as such was appropriate, but did want to let you know I posted a blog on it here. The marketing community has responded in one of two ways.
1 is to ask if Pottinger really did anything wrong or if the rules are just confusing. I'm embarrassed that people would ask this question. It reflects a lack of knowledge about the details of the edits Pottinger has made and the level of ignorance about how to engage with Wikipedia ethically within the marketing community. This ignorance lives on despite extensive documentation on Wikipedia and the community's best efforts. I feel obligated to inform the Wikipedia community the best I can that his actions are not reflective of the field as a whole, though many marketers do contribute unethically in milder cases, sometimes unknowingly.
2 is a hands-off policy. Like this one. I don't believe a complete hands-off policy best serves Wikipedia's interests either. This leaves many Wikis to serve the whims of a community that is also often bias, posts misinformation and creates content that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies or serves its encyclopedic interests.
As is suggested in my original post, I think there are better ways for us to work together and mend years of inappropriate contributions by both well-meaning and unethical marketers. Wikipedia has policies about forgiveness right? But we need to earn it first and this kind of thing doesn't help. King4057 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up David. The BP business only broke as we were going to press, so it seemed a useful point to illustrate the double-edged sword of marketers' contributions. I'd be glad for you to develop your thoughts on the topic further if you would like to submit something to the opinion desk; I was surprised at the unsympathetic reaction to our story in the comments. Skomorokh 16:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually Sven has been waiting for your comments on his Talk page for an op-ed on COI editing. I don't have much to say about Pottinger other than that they're douchebags and the distrurbing interpretation by marketers that don't know any better. I'll be sure to put it in though.
I also just reached out to a lawyer at the FTC that covers the internet and social media. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Pottinger-like contributions are unlawful. For example, last year the FTC busted Reverb Communications for posting fake reviews on mobile app sites. The centerpiece of that was the fact that they were impersonating a disinterested consumer, just like marketers impersonate a volunteer contributor and post similar company endorsements on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, marketers are required to disclose our identities online. I have no idea why this basic legal requirement hasn't been practiced on Wikipedia. Anonymous COI editing isn't just against Wikipedia's policies. I believe it's against the FTC's as well.
The FTC states on their own 'file a complaint' page that they pay attention when they get a lot of complaints on the same issue. So I'd like to encourage everyone who identifies a non-disclosing COI editor to report them to the noticeboard AND to the FTC. Part of the solution is a system that's not based on the expectation of ethics and following the guidelines, but making marketers aware that their behavior is potentially unlawful and getting their legal department to stop them in thier tracks BEFORE they ever make an edit. Not after years of vandalizing 100+ Wikis over 20 accounts and 1,000 edits. King4057 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO requested op-ed[edit]

1. I just noticed that the piece, I submitted is on permanent hold. That is fine. Let me know if you ever run it with my name, just so I can check it. (And I'm fine with what is there now, if you run that. Not being a prima donna over edits. Just don't want some surprise months from now, especially if majorly revised.) Of course if you report straight news that is on you and I don't need to know.

2. There STILL appears to be some confusion regarding "references". (section at end of archived talk.) Even though it is exactly as referenced on the two slides in my PowerPoint. And even though Andreea came and explained the proper documents. Not sure if this is coming from you or TK/Sandy. But the proper references are the 2 page peer reviewed, published conferrence proceedings WikiSym paper (NOT AN ABSTRACT). The citation is in the PPT and a link is even in the essay. And then she did a 100% NEW, unpublished CALCULATION for me, for the eyeball view. There is NO reference to some 70 page working paper (which is not even a published peer reviewed document). That was just a TK confusion. Andreea came and is exactly as I cited.

P.s. I really did not read the rest of the chat there, so please don't take my failure to contest anything as acceptance of crits.

TCO (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yo, sorry for the belated reply, the situation is unchanged since we last wrote except for the addition of a response by WSC to your piece. I'll update ASAP once we decide on a path for development and we can discuss which comments by the reviewers bear weight and what needs to be looked at. Skomorokh 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Op ed draft[edit]

I've incorporated changes based on your comments and some additional input from Sandy and Jbmurray. I've also included a couple of quotes from Johnbod and Looie496, having had permission from them to use the diffs. I'm sure I can tweak it further, but if you have time to give the latest version another once over that would be very helpful. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking in again -- partly to say that it would be great if the piece could run in the next edition. I'm probably flattering myself to think some substantive discussion might be generated, but the end of the semester is approaching and if there's to be any impact on next semester's USEP plan then it would be better to run this soon.
On a totally different topic, I happened to look at the William Gibson article and was sorry to see that the wonderfully iconic picture of him with a dark background has been replaced. I recall a debate about the picture years ago but I thought it was retained; I think it would be great if it could be returned to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike, sorry for the delay, I'll review the piece later today. If it's shipshape, we should be in a position to run before the end of term, yes. As for the Gibson article, the subject plead for the image to be removed and the inner fanboy the spirit BLP prevailed. Talk soon, Skomorokh 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion piece needs signoff[edit]

Please see User talk:Sven Manguard#Opinion. I'll be back in full for next week. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, greenlight for development from me. Skomorokh 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


Hello, With the US House scheduled to view SOPA for markup tomorrow, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to write an opinion essay on the subject in the next edition of the signpost. Thanks, Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, do you know anyone who might be interested in writing one? Skomorokh 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of writing it myself, hopefully there will be enough sources to make a decent article out of it. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay (2)[edit]

Can we set it for the week, or do you still feel there is stuff to be done there? If so you should add in your comments and I will address them as I can. Cheers, ResMar 02:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Sven too ;) ResMar 02:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, the essay only makes sense as a reaction to the "drive to quality has harmed retention" argument, which we have yet to make; we have the material for it, but it, like the essay, needs to be developed into a publishable state. Tony has pledged to undertake this, so once the current issue is seen to we can see where both pieces lie. Advance scheduling, as we have seen, is a fool's game. Skomorokh 02:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guess it can wait "indef." Cheers, ResMar 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Only as much as any essay submission. We have standards to uphold for our readership, and publishing editorials with no context does them no justice. Skomorokh 03:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed ;) ResMar 03:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Centrist Party (United States) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Centrist Party (United States). Since you had some involvement with the Centrist Party (United States) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TimBentley (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Signpost Barnstar icon.png The Signpost Barnstar
So we have this barnstar laying around, gathering dust; and I feel as though none of the editors that put pen to paper every week to produce the much-demanded Signpost has been properly compensated for their efforts. You deserve this :) ResMar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: If I left someone out by accident, feel free to give one to them, too. ResMar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mail sent to you[edit]

Hi Skomorokh--

I don't know what I'm doing, but I hope you got my e-mail on submitting an opinion piece to Signpost.

Thanks Yarrusso (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Why an e-mail? Is this not better done directly? ResMar 22:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Signpost email and delivery[edit]

Managed to get it out today. I tried checking the delivery for wikimediaannounce and foundation-l but I see it not delivered. However, I can't login to the Gmail to check or to send it out as apparently, the password that I have is no longer valid. Can you please help me check? Also, can you email me the new password? Cheers. --SMasters (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel better[edit]

Just saw your banner. Hope you get better soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"_____ in popular culture"[edit]

Are you aware of any "_____ in popular culture" articles that have been singled out as being of particularly good quality? For the most part, at least in my experience, such articles are generally a mess of un- or poorly-referenced material, trivia, and speculation. But, this is not necessarily so in all cases. Has any such article ever made it to FA or GA status? I ask not out of mere curiosity, but because I am working on such an article, and I am looking for some good examples to use as a guide. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.

I hope your health issues are resolved quickly. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at Category:Featured articles and Category:Good articles. There weren't any relevant featured articles that I saw off-hand, but there were a few good articles:
Hope that helps. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Something about something[edit]

hi smaster tony i have instructions from hospital after skomorohk jasper deng wont let me post email natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Skomorokh is recovering[edit]

With great relief I've received an email from Sko, via an intermediary. He will spend a few days recovering from a recent serious illness, but it looks to me as though full recovery will take longer than that. He's hoping to be online tomorrow and dealing with WP business by the weekend. Tony (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Empowered kitten distribution[edit]

2 footer balloon.jpg Get well quick
Do have a speedy recovery. =) Cheers, ResMar 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lev Chernyi[edit]

I noticed your excellent work on this article. I was wondering, do you have any idea where I might find any version of the works that he wrote? They seem to be impossible to find, in any language, let alone english. (PS, hope you are feeling better as you are one of the better editors on wikipedia) Chernyi (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)