User talk:Skomorokh/〢

Mark Thornton, Hayek, and Jimbo[edit]

Back when I worked at the Mises Institute, I mentioned to Mark Thornton that Jimbo had been a finance major at Auburn, where Mark taught for a number of years. Mark thought he remembered Jimbo, so I guess he emailed back and forth with him. Apparently, when he was a student at Auburn, Jimbo stopped by the Mises Institute at some point (it used to to be housed in what is now the AU Distance Learning office, I think) and ended up talking with Mark and picking up the Hayek essay. Mark told me about this in a conversation, so that is the source of my information (one reason why I have never tried to use it on Wikipedia--it would be OR from the conversations or self-citing). Lew mentioned this on the LRC blog after talking to Mark: [1]. Here is a later post, quoting Thornton on this topic: [2]. I am not aware of anything that would pass WP:RS muster. Good luck! DickClarkMises (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff, cheers Dick. Skomorokh 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been nice knowing ya...[edit]

After this, I am done with Wikipedia. I wish you well. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking christ. I said my piece, for what it's worth. Go n-éirí leat, Skomorokh 07:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I decided, almost against my better judgment, to say my piece, as well. Not that it matters now. I appreciate your comments over there, though. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my edit[edit]

Hi, I would like to discuss your revert of my edit on the Wales Talkpage, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the page watchlisted, cheers. Skomorokh 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea? I would like you to comment there as to your reason for reverting my good faith edit.Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, I'll respond shortly. Skomorokh 12:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have also chilled with your rapid revert of my good faith edit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD, baby; it's nothing personal. Let's continue the discussion on the article talkpage. Skomorokh 12:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoreSite and Carlyle Group[edit]

 |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the difficulty, which is why when merging I advised editors of the target article to do with the material as they wanted. I understand that you think the merge is inappropriate, and I don't disagree, but my role as closing administrator in the AfD was to determine and apply the local consensus on what to do with the CoreSite article. Rereading the discussion, I remain confident that the consensus was to merge the article, and it is not for you to say "merge is not an option" – the people have spoken.

As I see it there are a few options that we can pursue here: you can submit the CoreSite article to deletion review, and argue either that there was no consensus to merge in the AfD, or that it should have been relisted for another week; the merged content of the Carlyle Group article can be reworked less obtrusively so that it fits that article better; or I can retract the application of my decision, and you can notify the AfD participants and have a full-blown merge discussion at Talk:Carlyle Group. Either way, for now, CoreSite should remain a redirect.

I hope we can find a mutually satisfactory solution. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts -

In looking at the subject further, there are actually over 600 companies in which Carlyle have invested over the years. To put in even a paragraph about CoreSite is too much focus for such a small investment. The only reason this is an issue is because it was suggested in the AfD that a merger was a good course of action (for reasons I don't really understand) by people who did not understand the context of the relationship between Carlyle and CoreSite
The "do what you want" suggestion is not particularly fair to those editors who thought the outcome of the AfD was to merge if there isn't really going to be a merger
"the people have spoken" is not particularly helpful because the people excluded anybody interested in the Carlyle article. I am not trying to exert ownership over the Carlyle Group article but the situation was created because the merge was never discussed on the Carlyle talk page. Had it been discussed, interested editors could have expressed this opinion earlier
I think a modest case for notability can be established and the article needs to go through an AfD where this is debated and a keep or delete consensus is reached. I recently dumped a bunch of text from the CRG West article into CoreSite. I think it probably should be kept as a separate article.
The article was not deleted so a deletion review is not really appropriate and the consensus was certainly not delete. My guess is that the editors in the AfD thought this was an easier middle ground. You can re-open the AfD or relist it for a new AfD.

|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I agree with you that mergers should not be discussed at AfD, but that's not how the rest of the wiki sees it. I'm not going to revisit the AfD in question, as I am happy with the closure, but you're free to bring it up at another forum. I've just had a discussion with several of my colleagues, and they tell me that it's ok to take merges to DRV (and if anyone complains, tell them it's my fault). Alternatively, I'll make you an offer: CoreSite remains a redirect, its content stays out of the Carlyle Group article, I contact the editors who contributed to the AfD and you all discuss how much, if any of the content is incorporated into Carlyle Group. After a week, I (or an uninvolved editor) will close the merge discussion, and that will be that. If neither of these routes appeal to you, please take it up at the administrators' noticeboard or one of the community fora. Regards, Skomorokh 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI/AE[edit]

Thanks for letting me know; I seem to have missed all the excitement. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Skomorokh 07:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:[edit]

My reply. I will not, for reasons I make clear in the link. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from; my comment was more from a perspective of what might aid collaborative discussion than who is in the right/wrong. No worries, Skomorokh 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages[edit]

Can you please delete these two subpages:

Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Skomorokh 07:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind, can you delete this subpage, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RepublicanJacobite/Doctors,_Professors,_Kings_&_Queens

The article is now done and any changes will be made to it, rather than this subpage. This really took much longer than it should have. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, nice work on the article, and welcome back :) Skomorokh 15:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I say, it needn't have taken so long, but I'm glad I did it. Improvements to be made, like categories, and I'd like to find more reviews. Otherwise, not bad. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was fast! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs: [3][4][5][6] Skomorokh 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Xujia Wang.[edit]

I have nominated Xujia Wang, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xujia Wang. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks, Skomorokh 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted[edit]

Hello, while I realize you are an experianced user, it is against policy to remove the "botspam" from an article being concidered for featured status. Please also do not tag such things as minor. Nezzadar (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nezzadar, I wonder if you could point me to the policy in question? I do not believe the expired deletion notices contribute anything to the discussion at present other than cluttering the talkpage. On another note, the Enoch Powell article is not being considered for featured status at the present time. Regards, Skomorokh 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link on AN[edit]

Ack! Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De nada, Skomorokh 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Happy Voters[edit]

It seems like there is way more keep happy !voters than there use to be. It makes AFD even more of a pain. Joe Chill (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your perspective ;) Skomorokh 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious[edit]

You closed the AfD on L.A. Confidential Presents: Knoc-turn'al as a redirect, saying deletion would waste a valid search term. Do you really believe that many people will search for "L.A. Confidential Presents: Knoc-turn'al"? That sounds extremely unlikely to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even if it were rarely used, there is vanishingly little costs to redirects, and only benefits to readers in this case. Skomorokh 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The artist himself barely passes notability based on one work several years ago, which is why I even question the chances of him being searched that often, let alone a non-notable album of his. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the artist is a completely different matter. The question is, for readers searching for information on the album, will sending them to the artist article benefit them? The artist article mentions the album, provides useful pieces of information about it (it was an EP, it was his first release) and puts it into context vis a vis the artist's career. I don't understand *how* you could defend deleting such a redirect. Skomorokh 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making this an argument, I was simply trying to understand your reasoning. Sorry you have an issue with people "questioning" administrative choices. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such problems; check the talk archives if you're not convinced. You were curious as to my reasoning, and I tried to explain it. There isn't any argument because the discussion has been closed. Do you want me to clarify the closing rationale further? Regards, Skomorokh 14:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix[edit]

I was instructed by Darrenhusted to delete the individual opinions of writers, actors and directors because they are not relevant to the critical or popular consensus of a film. Was my edit deleted because this is incorrect, or was it because I failed to explain this in my edit summary?

Bardego (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because you didn't explain what you were doing with an edit summary, and the content looked appropriate. You don't have to follow other editors' instructions, and I'm not sure I agree with Darrenhusted in this case. The best thing to do would be to start a discussion at Talk:The Matrix, or if you want to figure out the general case, at WT:FILM. Sorry for reverting, regards, Skomorokh 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm new at this.

Bardego (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :) If there's anything I can help you with, please feel free to ask. Skomorokh 15:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plusbus[edit]

Can I ask who made the request to move PLUSBUS to Plusbus? As far as I can tell its an incorrect move, since the subject of the article uses all caps PLUSBUS. Last time I checked, WP titles were supposed to respect that. However I am willing to be proved wrong, and I am not 100% up on policy in that area. Jeni ^(talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeni, the requester was User:Arriva436. The article should follow the title of the article, which should follow WP:NC, as far as I understand it. My reading of Wikipedia:NAME#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise is that the uncapitalized version is correct, though I'm willing to be corrected. If you want to start a move discussion using WP:RM I won't have any objection. Regards, Skomorokh 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's good enough for me, as I said I wasn't fully aware of the guidelines. And I respect the choices that user makes as he certainly has his head screwed on! Thanks for the prompt response. Jeni ^(talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollgator[edit]

Why did you redirect to List of aggregators? If it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it does not belong on the list DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I can't find any edits or log entries for Rollgator. Did you have another page in mind? Regards, Skomorokh 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin culture[edit]

Sir, how can I read more about 'admin culture' and the behavior of admins at Wikipedia? Are you capable of supplying me with a wealth of information on this subject, or else a modicum of information on this subject? Varks Spira (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you and others are afraid to critically discuss Wikipedia's administrators then please let me know about this as well. I have heard troubling things about getting involved with the editing of Wikipedia articles. Varks Spira (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Wikipedia's administrators; one of them, at least :). You can read about the bad behaviour of admins at Wikipedia at Criticism of Wikipedia and at the website Wikipedia Review, amongst others. Regards, Skomorokh 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles make for fascinating reading, along with a few of the articles listed in the See Also. Any reason why there isn't an article specifically about Wikipedia's administrators, or its hierarchy? Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia and Reliability_of_Wikipedia are excellent introductory articles. Varks Spira (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedia entry: Wikipedia:Administrators. I haven't been able to find an article about Wikipedia's administrators that includes critical commentary. That's tremendously odd, wouldn't you say? I would like to see some discussion of the role the administrators at Wikipedia have played, for better or worse. Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia administrator article? Varks Spira (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't engage in original research. Unless a reliable source can verify then content of an article then we should not have an article on it. How many other encyclopedia's have articles about their own internal practices? Chillum 04:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not the first to suggest this it sounds like. I would have figured the media had discussed Wikipedia's administrators oodles and oodles of times? Here's an article that gives the approximate count of administrators at Wikipedia along with some other information: http://www.thegatewayonline.ca/articles/opinion/2009/01/29/edit-flags-would-cripple-wikipedia Varks Spira (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism of Wikipedia article has already been pointed out to you. I will also say that student newspapers are not considered reliable sources, and that particular article is decidedly lacking in context. Chillum 04:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Criticism of Wikipedia article to be insufficient in describing the role of a Wikipedia administrator in the context of the media. How have they conducted themselves respectably and badly? Do they all know each other? How do they communicate with each other? How many of them are there? In layman's terms, how do they become administrators? How long does it take? And, yes, that article wasn't exactly reputable. Varks Spira (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss this further you can do so on my talk page. I do hate to hijack a third party's page for a conversation. Chillum 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical frivolity[edit]

Re, "revert; that's not the way to go about it. See WP:AfD." Wikipedia is publishing unattributed nonsense, which you've now restored. Bottom line is that I got rid of it and you reverted to keep it. If there is some occult and secret way to remove this nonsense (which now, per your revert, belongs to you,) then by all means pursue it.24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you the topic is real, and that if you continue using blanking as a means to enforce your opinions, you will be blocked from contributing. No content on Wikipedia "belongs" to any editor, cheap rhetorical tricks notwithstanding. I will start a deletion discussion on your behalf; would you like to make a statement here as to why you feel the article ought to be removed, or shall I link you to the discussion? Skomorokh 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten me with blocks; this is rude, uncalled for, and a bad idea. If the subject is real, as you say, then bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.

"No content on Wikipedia "belongs" to any editor, cheap rhetorical tricks notwithstanding."

In other words, you are not responsible for your own contributions.24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you confuse causal responsibility with residual control rights – if I contribute material to an article, that does not give me the right for that material to stay unimproved in that article. You've indicated your intention to ignore the project's consensus decision-making process and dictate your own terms over the article – that is not consistent with the deliberative egalitarianism by which the retention and deletion of articles is decided, and is grounds for a block, have no illusions. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, the link is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical frivolity. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"…and is grounds for a block, have no illusions."

Oh, I don't. Benjiboi got me blocked just the other day, after all.24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you weren't blocked for routine edit-warring. Do you have difficulties collaborating with others? In any case, I have added some references to the tactical frivolity article should you like to offer comment. Regards, Skomorokh 11:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you have difficulties collaborating with others?"

Yes. I have this horrible psychological tic which leaves me unable to productively collaborate with compulsive plagiarists and liars. Obviously, Wikipedia is full of these, and an ability to interact positively with them is important. We should strive to make everyone, especially game-players and liars, feel at home. If regular people try to stop this, they should be banned.24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And which "compulsive plagiarists and liars" are responsible for the "just made up" "nonsense article" tactical frivolity? And if Wikipedia wanted to make "everyone feel at home", why would I have opposed your blanking of it? I'm afraid your argument isn't quite holding together. There is a certain class of contributor who loves being repressed, so that they can then slink away and complain bitterly of the injustice of it all; I would hope you would have more self-respect than that, and can help indicate to me how the tactical frivolity article can be improved. Sincerely, Skomorokh 12:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"And which "compulsive plagiarists and liars" are responsible for the "just made up" "nonsense article" tactical frivolity?"

I'd referred to my block by Benjiboi et al., of course.24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you maintain this justifies your blanking of the article? Discussion welcome on the talkpage regarding the verification, by the way. Skomorokh 12:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have understand --O extremenho (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page restoration[edit]

I don't have an issue with you restoring this talk page, however, your log entry doesn't seem accurate. From what I can see, CSD G7 was completely applicable as there was only one author. Am I missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of whether or not "only one contributor" means "only one editor in the page history" or "only one editor contributed material to the page". G7 was appropriate under the former definition, as only Benjiboy appears in the history, but it is apparent that at least one other editor contributed to the archive. I don't think it's kosher to move conversations involving others and then have them deleted as one's own contributions. I'm happy to have this clarified though. Skomorokh 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The actual contributions are presumably in the main talk page history, but that makes more sense now. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sorry if not consulting you first was bad form, I am new. Skomorokh 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]