User talk:Skomorokh/ङ

Redirects,

I see that you've recreated that redirect. Do not do so again, as it was deleted under a discussion. I asked you to cite a source for it's creation, and you didn't, nor did you even bother participating in the discussion. I know that you recreated it, as you did so on August 8th, and the redirect deletion discussion came to a close a little before August 4th.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about; your link leads to an Error. Regards, the skomorokh 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My link leads to an error because they now deleted the redirect again and protected it from recreation. Either way, don't lie to me, it said in the history that you created that redirect on August 8th, after the discussion ended for the other to delete it on the 4th. Admins can see the history of the article, so lying about it won't get you far.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you for real? First off, if you want to discuss a page/discussion/action, link to it competently - you still haven't deigned to tell me what on earth you're talking about. Secondly, to accuse me of lying (about what, again is mystifying) is an outrageous assumption of bad faith. Thirdly, don't dictate to me what I do and do not "need" to do; my talkpage works just how I like it. If you're having problems viewing it properly, you may have an outdated or inadequate browser. Now begone from my talkpage until you are willing to behave in a civil, respectful, informative manner. the skomorokh 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have a bad memory, but I only remember discussing one redirect with you, and that's all I ever talked about with you, but since your memory seems to fail you, I was talking about the redirect, which was deleted after a discussion, Fetish: Footage: Forum. Now, as you can read, and as stated, it was deleted at an RFD, this discussion to be exact. Now, the last argument posted to the discussion was a delete. Two days after that argument was posted, you created Fetish:Footage:Forum, which just seems too suspicious to me, especially since I alerted you to the discussion, but you never participated. The timing of the creation of the second redirect is too well timed to be a coincidence. I checked the history, so don't tell me otherwise; I also have an admin looking into the history of the second created redirect, so you can't deny it.

Lastly, the note about your talk page templates was not an order, it was what I thought you needed to do, in no way was I telling you what to do. As to my browser, I am using the latest version of Firefox, so I doubt it is either outdated or inadequate. I was trying to help, yes, I admit, I was rude, but simply because I was trying to help in note of an error in your template, does not give you the right to treat me like crap when I try to help in regards to it. So it works fine for you? What about the others who can't see their comments?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia hosts numerous battles between ignorance and information. Who is winning today?" - User talk:Moni3.

I see...this shitstorm is the result of your objecting to the redirect of Fetish:Footage:Forum. Wow. I have created over 600 mainspace redirects, and this is the only one that has invoked the scrutiny of...redirect monitors. Very well. Now that I know what you're talking about, we can have a useful discussion.

Now looking into the archives, I see a discussion here; I asked why you had nom'd for CSD, you replied that it was an implausible type. Let's be very clear about this - you thought that "Fetish:Footage:Forum" was an implausible typographical error for Pattern Recognition. This is of course absurd - why would anyone interpret "Fetish:Footage:Forum" as a mispelled version of "Pattern Recognition"? The redirect was obviously created for another reason.

So you reply "It is not that I think it is a typo, it's that it is an implausible typo, meaning, it is a series of words which bare no meaning to what it redirects to, as in, it could redirect to any number of things, and there are no sources cited that prove it would only redirect to this." From this, I conclude that you would delete any redirect whose purposes you do not understand. To ask for a "reliable source" to justify a redirect is ridiculous - WP:REDIRECT lists a number of types of redirects that should and should not be allowed, but says nothing about any requirements for reliable sources.

My response: "It's pretty evident that you are not familiar with either Pattern Recognition or with Fetish: Footage: Forum. Yet, you consider yourself qualified to judge the meaning of their relationship. Take a look at the first three Google hits for "Fetish: Footage: Forum". Do you really expect me to cite sources every time I create a redirect from a subtopic?"

Your response: "Every editor here is qualified to edit Wikipedia, we are all on equal grounds. No, I do not expect you to, however, I do expect you to when the article does not even mention the source words in the redirect. Google hits do not establish notability, and if you can't cite that these series of words are only used in this instance in this film, I'm going to have to CSD it again, and request protection."

Now at any point in this conversation, you could have asked "Skomorokh, why did you create the redirect Fetish:Footage:Forum to Pattern Recognition (novel)?" You could have performed a web search for the term "fetish:footage:forum" and discovered the reason behind the redirect within five seconds. You could have read the target article Pattern Recognition (novel), and noticed references to "footage" and "forum" and put two and two together. But you did none of these things, because you were too busy mindlessly following process to put any thought into the matter.

So instead, you nominate it for RfD, and inform me of the debate and invite me to contribute, and when I do not, you politely remind me once more. This is very courteous, and you ought to be commended for it. The reason I declined to contribute to the RfD was that, after my first experience in having a redirect I created speedied, and the amazing display of wilfull ignorance and pettiness on you part, I was curious as to how long the charade would go on without anyone turning their critical faculties on. And, lo and behold, the farce continues at RfD and the redirect is deleted, despite the fact that no-one has even pretended to claim that it met any of the conditions at WP:R#DELETE. You will note the RfD discussion on August 3 on Blecch in which you !vote for deletion, and ask those voting keep why the redirect is notable! This, on top of your "reliable sources" faux pas, is priceless. It's one thing to follow process without judgement or regard for the negative effects, it's another thing entirely to do so while remaining ignorant of the basic policies at hand. So, there was no policy-based reason to delete the redirect...but was there one not to delete? Yes, when "They aid searches on certain terms." A reader searching for information on Fetish:Footage:Forum will not now be delivered to the article with information on it. A failure on our part, and an indictment of all those who nominated and deleted it without any thought for its value.

Now a general comment; in order to participate in a collaborative project in an effective and copacetic manner, I strongly suggest you reconsider your attitude. If you don't understand something another participant has done, you ask them in a polite manner if they could explain the matter. I you have a suggestion for someone to change some aspect of their set-up, don't intrude and try to do it yourself or tell people flatly "You need to fix it". And on a side note, though it's a common enough practice, it's really inappropriate to ascribe genders to strangers on the internet, and I really do not appreciate being referred to as "he". Your current demeanour will only cause further acrimony. I hope you will seriously reconsider both your patrolling and attitude. Sincerely, the skomorokh 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's one thing that you didn't note, specifically, a comment that I made. I don't remember the exact wording, but I did in fact ask you to explain what exactly that redirect had to do with the target article. As said, I did ask you to participate in the RfD, and I'm pretty sure you could have changed the outcome if you participated, but you didn't. The only other delete argument said, basically, that unless the redirect creator can identify what this series of words has to do with the article. Meaning of course, that you could have changed the outcome by explaining things. Telling me to do a google search is not an explanation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, all of that is completely besides the point. The point is that you created another redirect as soon it was made apparent that the first was going to fail the RfD, when you could have instead contributed to the RfD, and changed the outcome. Continuing on, you can still request a deletion review, since you obviously feel very strong about this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the point at all. The point is whether your actions improved the encyclopaedia, not whether they follow process. I don't care one bit about redirects; I care a lot about the conduct, attitude and modus operandi of patrollers. Speaking as a patroller myself, this fiasco shows what happens when we neither critically or socially engage with the content we oversee. How many other encyclopaedia-improving pages get deleted every day when they have no established user to speak up on their behalf? I shudder to think. the skomorokh 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. I'm not talking specifically about the process like you make it out to be, but rather your conduct in the matter, which has been rather uncivil from the start, all those weeks ago. So far you haven't shown a very nice attitude towards others or people that disagree with you. As I've said numerous times: you could have participated in a discussion, and you obviously do care about this redirect, seeing as how you created it again two days after the first delete vote in the discussion regarding the original redirect. From your POV, I didn't improve the enyclopedia, I deleted a redirect you found useful. From my point of view, I did, I deleted a redirect that no one but you had shown the slightest care about. You didn't even bother explaining it when I asked you to.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may throw in my 1.99 cents, your talk page is meant to be a medium used by other people wanting to communicate with you, which makes it logical to design it so that it works for them. Personally, and I'm using FF3 as well, the bottom notice blocks the last line of text on the page. That being said, you don't have to fix it, and nobody is telling you to, but it would be a nice thing to do.

Also, can you guys be a bit more civil? Creating animosity is never a good idea. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Puppets, thank you for your interest, and I had not realised editors using FF3 were having difficulties, but your choosing to involve yourself here uninvited really does not help matters. Regards, the skomorokh 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to give input, so I did. I'm sorry if I violated your talk page's "do not discuss here" rules. :P Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, uncalled for and even more unhelpful. Adios, the skomorokh 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how the last sentence on the page is obscured from view, I do not see how this is uncalled for at all. I asked him to come in and try to convince you that it wasn't working, since you seemed rather against any kind of input telling you that it wasn't working.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

giant red angry box

I agree. So why didn't you remove it? MSGJ 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Because then I'd get an angry red template welcoming me to Wikipedia and demanding I stop vandalising pages ;) the skomorokh 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Chapter and verse

Is there, as far as you know, a reference template that includes a parameter for citing a specific chapter in a book? I have never seen one and cannot find one. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. The parameter was right there, and I overlooked it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yo, yeah there's |chapter= and |chapterurl= in {{cite book}} (though, annoyingly, no |chapterauthor=), and the {{harv}} family also support them. Cheers, the skomorokh 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a chapterauthor parameter would make a lot of sense, and would be quite helpful. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

oops, a question

Please see Talk:Omphalos hypothesis.

Will do, thanks. the skomorokh 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus969

You might find this of interest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but life's too short to waste on that shit you know? the skomorokh 18:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. In any case, I have made my effort, and wash my hands of it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For pointing me to the potential goldmine here, which not only resolved my immediate problem but will likely also be of great use for addressing copyright concerns in the future. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Truly, tremendously appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, that's very kind :) I am very glad you found it helpful, and hopefully it will continue to in future. Regards, the skomorokh 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarsaparilla back as Ron Paul...Ron Paul...??

Notice you had a problem with "him" and he fits the profile: new but expert editor, editing on a certain slice of libertarian-oriented views, babbles away on talk with lots of Refs, lots of anarchist and Rothbard-Rockwell refs. (He's starting to give them a bad name!) I think he might accidentally have edited with IP number here. He's really messing with Libertarianism right now with POV edits against a hard won consensus. Oi Oi Oi! Carol Moore 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Oh hello Carol! Yes I have been having problems with RPRP, but I did not make the link to Sarsaparilla - this chap seems a lot more headstrong. Have you brought this to the administrators' attention? Stay vigilant, the skomorokh 16:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to User_talk:Aldrich_Hanssen you'll see he can be quite combative, which is why I believe he was blocked there before they realized he was a sock. Give that the last admin never responded to my emails showing he claims he can edit from various public terminals, I wasn't sure if they would pay attention. Haven't done this before - I assume you mean: Wikipedia:ANI?? Or where? Sockpuppets is really confusing and not sure how to report there. Carol Moore 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seeing as this is an ongoing issue rather than a single issue, and I agree that the Sockpupper forum is confusing and difficult, I say post at WP:AN. Include a list of all the (unblocked) accounts you suspect and some links to show why, and ask for help. I'll back up your comment if necessary. This business is seriously undermining the development of libertarianism-related articles. the skomorokh 18:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI said in bold not to report sock puppets there, but I screwed up this report. Argh... Will rethink it later; see if someone else fixes it :-). Carol Moore 19:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a pity. You could try asking for help at WP:HD or by putting a {{helpme}} template on your talk page. the skomorokh 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good news. In interim someone has put a tag on Ron Paul...Ron Paul... that he's a sock puppet of Karmaisking. And he's noted he'll be gone soon. So I'll revert that mess at Libertarianism and delete or archive? the relevant talk section Carol Moore 19:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Malato

On 16 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Malato, 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.

Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt, for this and for all the hard work you've been doing at T:TDYK lately. Regards, the skomorokh 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Garden of Cosmic Speculation

Thanks for the tidying up of my new entry --Flexdream (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for contributing it. the skomorokh 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Anarchy Alive!

On 17 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarchy Alive!, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Uri Gordon

On 17 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uri Gordon, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Social centres

Let's kill one aspect of this stone dead - it's irrelevant to me what they are - all I care about is notability and if articles have decent sources, they could be about vibrators for all I care. How is it that over the space of three years that sources cannot be provided? You (or anyone) provide decent sourcing and there will be no AFDs - I'll have a look for sources myself (as I always do) before I afd them -so it will be a couple of days. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what the articles are about - they are notable topics. Your claim that you always search for sources is hard to believe given your oversight at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowley Club (2nd nomination). All I'm asking is that you are not similarly hasty with the other articles, because that would be needlessly disruptive. Regards, the skomorokh 16:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that it? my local pub gets a mention in that section of the times. The whole area looks like a rat's maze, I can see dozens of AFDs coming up. As for AFD - I think when I last worked it out, my kill rate is about 90%, so clearly I must be doing something right. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Kill rate"? Is that the sort of sandcastle-kicking attitude we are dealing with here? Why the antagonism towards the hard work of others? Why not collaborate in trying to improve the encyclopaedia instead of tearing it down? the skomorokh 16:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Elegance of the Hedgehog

I am checking the page now. --Efe (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. the skomorokh 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Egoist anarchism

Since the creation of this article would effect a fairly large area, should we make a list of article that would need to be updated? (I.E. with links, section names, etc.) Zazaban (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go and start it on the talk. Zazaban (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at sandbox, thanks. the skomorokh 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth knowing that the black box you've placed at the bottom of the screen blocks things out

This is written here, but I don't know if you can see it. See what I mean? Zazaban (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, others have mentioned it, but I've used different browsers and different operating systems without any difficulty with the text. I have altered the position but apparently without result. As long as I can read other editors comments, the purpose of the talkpage is ensured, and the note is of sufficient importance to remain for now. Thanks for the heads-up. the skomorokh 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Communism and religion edits

Hey - I saw you marked the about.com source at Communism and religion as having questionable reliability. Is there some unwritten law against about.com that I don't know about? Thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Black box = obnoxious :( Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just not clear that it is a reliable source; most websites tend not to be. the skomorokh 10:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when are 'most websites' not reliable sources? As fellow wikipedia editors, we can't say that with a straight face. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 20:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since always; Wikipedia is not a reliable source either, you know :) Wikipedia:Reliable sources lays it out pretty clearly. Regards, the skomorokh 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Our Feature Presentation...

Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instruction of thecopyvio tag at Our Feature Presentation, and wishing to address the concern, I created the temp page excactly where it directed me to do so and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. Will your moving it affect an Admin's ability to remove the copyvio tag, as it is now in a different spot than first directed? How do I getthe copyvio tage removed, since it has been addresed? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh what a nightmare. My advice clearly contradicts the template notice. I'd say your best bet is to present the situation at WP:ANI where you should get a quick response. Failing that, just remove the copyvio template and quickly reword the content. Regards, the skomorokh 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)