User talk:Skomorokh/घ

Uristoration

{{adminhelp}}

Yo, could you please restore all good revisions of the expired prod Uri Gordon to my userspace at User:Skomorokh/Uri? Muchas gracias, the skomorokh 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, howabout restoring the history of Roots of Empathy so non-admins can dig for useful info? Danke, the skomorokh 16:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! the skomorokh 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista 64-bit editions

Don't fight this. There is absolutely no logical sense for keeping two articles about editions of Windows Vista. One is sufficient. Warren -talk- 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Don't fight this"? Who do you think you are to go around issuing ultimatums and ramming through your desired changes against community consensus? This is poor practice for a participant in a collaborative project, and quite frankly the encyclopaedia deserves better. the skomorokh 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheep in a Jeep

The book passes criteria 4 of WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll reconsider if you examine the footnote attached to criteria 4: "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science." Regards, the skomorokh 13:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article as csd-g7. I wish that I would have noticed that. Schuym1 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, the text is a little misleading. I would have agreed with your interpretation until I saw the footnote. Regards, the skomorokh 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for From Bakunin to Lacan

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article From Bakunin to Lacan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Regards, the skomorokh 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Moishe Tokar

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moishe Tokar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shalom, the skomorokh 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleting hoaxes

In general, articles that are hoaxes are usually also speedyable under A7 and (if utterly ridiculous) occasionally under G1. G3 does include a proviso for "blatant and obvious hoaxes". I think that phrase was included there so that we don't have to PROD or AFD a well-written article about someone who played Rugby Union in the 4 - 2 BC seasons.... (Yes, I actually did delete an extremely well-written and well-formatted article that said that. Lamentably it was unsourced - now that would have been epic.) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, the problem here was that the article had the most outrageous assertion of notability. I remembered their being drama about hoax articles not getting a fair hearing so consulted WP:HOAX and brought it to AfD. I see now that was a little conservative, so I'll update the WP:HOAX guide to reflect G3. The rugby union example is most instructive - amazing what people come up with! Thanks for stopping by, the skomorokh 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong Hearts need homes

{{Admin!}} Yo, can you userfy the expired prod Strong Hearts for me at User:Skomorokh/Strong? I have found coverage in reliable sources and would like to develop the article in my userspace so that it meets our criteria for inclusion. the skomorokh 22:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You can find it at the requested location. Regards SoWhy 11:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. the skomorokh 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Resplit Bertrand Russell

10-Nov-2008: Hello. User:Wikid77 here. I have re-split article "Bertrand Russell" but also left reduced text in the main article, with plans for further condensing. I noticed you preferred titles "Philosophy of...", but due to huge text, I split Russell with 2 subarticles (at least):

• Bertrand Russell views on society - extracted from section "Activism";
• Bertrand Russell views on philosophy - sections "Philos. work" & "Influence on phil.".

Then all parts were interconnected with a sidebar navbox. To rejoin discussion, see:

• Talk:Bertrand_Russell#Splitting_article_into_3_or_4.

Else, reply here or my page (when you have time). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:16, 10 Nov 2008

Yo, thanks for the heads up on this. You're right that I prefer the convention of "Philosophy of" a la Stirner and Nietzsche, but I'm not too concerned either way and probably won't get involved in the discussion. Regards, the skomorokh 17:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: This

I don't quite get the comparison of Wikipedia to social networking sites, friend. Ultra's reply fitted my sentiments exactly though, and I do apologise if the wording of my little "rant" was not coherent enough to be understood :-) - Regardless, if you're going to be a cock, then no matter what great things you've done, you'll always be a cock. That is as simple as I can put it, that is what I meant. Once again, sorry for the confusion, buddy! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was reading things into your comment; they may or may not be there. My point was that often errant editors (or "cocks" if you will) are often treated as needing punishment and rehabilitation - the focus here being on the people - i.e. the social side of things. What I think actually matters is that Wikipedia is not a "community", but an encyclopaedia, and users editors don't come first, articles do. If someone acted like BBHS did without having contributed much to the encyclopaedia, I'd have few reservations about banning him. But he has contributed more quality content that the vast majority of admins, say, ever will. The focus should be "how can we get the best encyclopaedia out of all this", not "how can we get editors to conform to our behavioural norms". Not all editors should be treated equally - editing is a privilege not a right, and it should be accorded on merit, not principle. Socking and disrespect from Wikipedia (which have no real encyclopaedic impact) aside , what crimes has BBHS committed? Some template-warring, intemperate comments and ownership of articles; Big fuckin' deal. Sorry if I was unclear or operating under mistaken assumptions in my earlier comment. Mahalo, the skomorokh 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Property is Theft

Please provide a link to the official decision to exclude the Branden criticism. If you have don't have an offical decision then I will take your 'warning' as a form of partisan threat, and unless you ARE an admin, it is a hollow threat entended to restrict the editing rights that make Wikipedia what it is. If you are an admin with the power to block my editing privileges when I have done nothing wrong, that power should be revoked for threatened misuse. --Steve (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Official" decision? I don't think you get it; this is a wiki, where decisions are made by editors according to consensus. I supported the inclusion of the Branden material, but consensus was against it. Now the matter is closed, unless some new consensus deems it otherwise. I am not an administrator, and my message to you was not a threat; simply, if you continue edit-warring, you are very likely to be blocked; editing is not a "right", it's a privilege which can be withdrawn at any time. Sincerely, the skomorokh 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page in question, you will notice that you failed to correctly count the RfC and got the concensus wrong. The votes submitted were between 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 in favor of the criticism (depending upon whether one counts your opinion in the matter). I have restored the community wishes - that is NOT edit warring. Your continuing to revert when in opposition to the community wishes would be edit-warring. --Steve (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you don't get it - Wikipedia is not a democracy and RfC's are not headcounts. Read it: WP:CONSENSUS. the skomorokh 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the conversation is here, we might as well continue it here. You are missing the point. You wanted to get a concensus to remove the criticism and didn't achieve it. Leave the material alone. Your user page makes it clear that you are an advocate of anarchy - please note that even though I'm not an advocate of anarchy, I don't attempt to make partisan edits to the body of anarchy material - I only provided a valid, relevant, sourced critisim in a section called critisim that was supported by the RfC. --Steve (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously misreading the situation. I was in favour of including the Branden material. When you and Jemmy started revert-warring over it, I asked for admin intervention, the page was protected, and I started an RfC. Reading the RfC, it's clear to me that, as much as I would prefer the contrary to be true, there was no consensus to include the content. As for the "advocate of anarchy" bullshit, my working on anarchism-related articles does not make me an anarchist any more than my work on Objectivism-related articles makes me an Objectivist or working on William Gibson-related articles makes me a cyberpunk. the skomorokh 11:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Skinner's Room

Hi, I am reviewing your article Skinner's Room for GA. It is a wonderful little article and I have left a few comments on the review page Talk:Skinner's Room/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Great to work with you again! I'll reply at the talkpage. the skomorokh 11:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for pirates

{{helpme}}

orthogonal discussion

I think you probably shouldn't be asking onwiki for people to commit COPYVIO. [roux » x] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright does not apply universally, and the template in question is {{helpme}}, not {{tellmethingsialreadyknow}}. the skomorokh 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're asking, onwiki, for someone to do something that is illegal in many jurisdictions, and certainly illegal under US law. This is not a good idea. [roux » x] 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to do anything illegal. If it is illegal in your jurisdictin to fulfill my request then I recommend you refrain from doing so. I strongly request that you, roux, stop using my talkpage against my wishes. If you keep nullifying the template, I will revert your edits. Sincerely, the skomorokh 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of an ask, but could some kind soul possibly access this torrent, download the 17.64kb file "William Gibson - Skinner's Room.pdf" and email it to me at "theskomorokh" at Google Mail? It's for a very good cause, I promise. the skomorokh 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not alter the helpme template unless you have fulfilled the request. the skomorokh 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If fulfilling the request from your legal jurisdiction is in contravention of copyright law, you are advised not to do so. Good faith replies only please. Thank you, the skomorokh 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive, please. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is your problem?? I make a request for help in improving content on Wikipedia and all I get is a succession of busybodying unhelpful comments. You would do well to explain yourself, as the disruption I see is all coming from your (plural) direction. the skomorokh 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are asking for us to download a copyright violation. You don't see a problem with that? It is illegal for us to do so. Please find it by some other means, or approach a different source. This is non-negotiable; copyright is copyright, illegality is illegality. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No I certainly am not - is it too much to ask that you read the request? For your imformation, copyright law, where it exists, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it is completely inaccurate to maintain that the downloading or emailing of the file in question is prima facie "illegal". the skomorokh 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and all that, but dealing with perhaps illegal materials in a questionable matter on wikipedia is bad form, and while it may not be illegal, it certainly seems very shady to me.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think the concept of "perhaps illegal" will stand up in court. I can understand that editors might be uneasy about what is illegal in their jurisdiction, but it is an entirely different matter to try to prevent legal transactions between consenting adults in other jurisdictions. The approach here has been authoritarian and thoroughly assumptive of bad faith, which frankly is quite disappointing behaviour towards an editor of my record of contributions. Thanks for your comment Kerotan. the skomorokh 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to hear a satisfactory objection to my request. I have no desire to stir drama, but it is quite important that I access the story, and the rationale to the contrary is simply not good enough. I would welcome an explanation from any of the editors who stopped by to nullify the request. Sincerely, the skomorokh 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, its not the concept of anything been taken to court that worries me, its more the fact it certainly questionable, and while I wouldn't stop something that is legit from taking place, but then on the flip side it could also be a illegal action, which kinda leaves this whole affair in a awkward middle ground, which I can only equate to someone who has done something perfectly legal, but ends up looking like a bit of plonker for doing it, queue jumping in the only example I can think of right now, but anywho, I'm going to leave it there a basically issue the proviso that discretion in required in this mater.--Kerotan-^{Have a nice day :)} 23:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's illegal to display Nazi iconography in Germany, but if a Venezuelan editor writing an article on the Swastika wanted to know about the aesthetic effects of hanging it from a balcony, and asked a Mongolian to try it out for her, the legality of the Mongolians action would not be remotely questionable. Your argument simply does not hold water. the skomorokh 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Per your request on my talk page) I'm going to make this position very clear:

• Most of the respondents to the {{helpme}} are British or American, with a few exceptions. In Britain and America, the download of that file is against the law, as it is copyrighted.
• Downloading copyrighted material is a risk to us as the downloader, rather than you as the recipient. Please respect that we're partly trying to cover our backsides.
• If you know of a specific country or place in which the download of that file is perfectly legal, I suggest you consult the Babel category and find someone within that country. In Britain and America, this would not be appropriate.
• On-wiki discussion and recorded download of copyrighted material is, erm, risky at best. It would not look good for us if the helpers on Wikipedia are quite happy to download copyrighted content and send it to you.
• If it means so much to you, can't you do it yourself? Through access to another computer, perhaps.

This is very much the long-and-short of it. I'm sorry if my tone appeared unsatisfactory, but for the reasons listed above, I (personally) would not be happy undertaking this task. And gathering from the other people who have responded similarly, it would appear that others are not happy either. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. I see from this that I perhaps erred in using a tool with such a broad respondent-base; I assumed that anyone legally unable to help would simply move on, just as it works on the reference desk. I am unable to use torrent software because I have no access to computer with those privileges, unfortunately. Again, the notion of copyright is a local, and not a universal one. What I don't understand is the thoroughly unhelpful and downright rude response my good faith request for assistance brought. the skomorokh 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

PeterSymonds (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

No problem, and I really do apologise if my tone was unsatisfactory. I perhaps, and wrongly, thought it was clear that most of our helpers are British and American, and barring perhaps a few countries, any respondents would have been in a country in which such downloads are illegal. It seemed extremely odd that the helpme was reactivated for that reason. Again, my apologies; I will take your advice in future, and good luck with finding that file. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I think we are all on the same page now. Regards, the skomorokh 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your DYK submission of Charles Malato

Hello! Your submission of Charles Malato at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Manifesto of the Sixteen

On 13 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manifesto of the Sixteen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, keep up the good work :) Mahalo, the skomorokh 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk before going nuclear

Let's talk on my talk page or yours. Please let's not get into an edit war over this. What is your specific reason for each deletion of each EL? - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by; I think it's best that we talk it out on the article talk page, so that others can contribute. Regards, the skomorokh 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Elegance of the Hedgehog

Thanks Skomorokh. Just to let you know I have addressed some of your initial concerns. --Efe (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I have the page watchlisted. the skomorokh 06:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Saw your post about the username "Hollback Girl" or something to that tune and automatically adding a report to AIV. It is not necessary to do that. There are admin bots out there who automatically block usernames which are similar to existing users, those being that get targetted enough. An example is Can't sleep, clown will eat me. If you create an account something similar to that, it will be blocked automatically. This i think does not work on SUL accounts, you'll have to double check that. But that's the easiest way. 220.239.47.163 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't seem to be working fast enough in this case; do you know which bots specifically can do this? the skomorokh 08:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 has one. 220.239.47.163 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)