User talk:Skomorokh/इ

"investment banker?"

Regarding your question "investment banker? how long has this bullshit been in here?", the answer is "since September 2010". Disclaimer: I had nothing to do with inserting it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I vacillate between trying to make that article less of a font of misinformation and unwatching in disgust for the other nine months of the year; I tend to think your own research skills are wasted on these tidbits. The full story of the man and his past is still waiting to be unearthed and written... Skomorokh 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a very little support for writing such a story. It'd likely result in nothing for me except intense personal attack :-( -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

talkpage detail

Hi, I liked a couple of your edits at Wales I thought a could needed a bit of discussion to see consensus, so I opened a talkpage thread I am a bit busy also a couple of days, no worries, regards. thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, have responded, thanks. Skomorokh 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please follow WP:BRD you are rejecting discussion and creating disruption, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Now now, rejecting discussion? You opened a thread without explaining your objections, I conceded on the one matter you did explicate on and asked you to be forthcoming on the rest. Rather uncharitable to lay accusations of disruption, I must say. And now you have reverted once more without any explanation? This is not collegial editing by any means. Skomorokh 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is - more or less, I am discussing with you, you wanted a bold edit and I have reverted and opened a thread on the talpage for discussion - we can seek additional input and a consensus over the next couple of days, Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But you haven't discussed anything or given any particular rationales for reverting a sequence of unrelated edits – it gives no-one anything to discuss. If you haven't time to contribute, that's fine, but insisting no-one else does in the meantime amounts to obstructionism and I'm afraid I don't understand why such tactics are called for here. Please out of good faith, if you don't intend on discussing the substance of the edits, at least restore the ones you don't object to. Skomorokh 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am overly busy to do that right now - I won't object and as a good faith measure that I agree you edits were not a big issue - feel free to revert to your edit and I will look again over the next day or two, . Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is reasonable. Skomorokh 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Stoicism is now GA class

Hello Skomorokh, I want to thank you for your work on Stoicism. The article has now passed GA! --Tea with toast (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for a mentor, would you possibly consider...

I'm new to Wikipedia and am looking for an online mentor, who will be available to offer advice and assistance as I start editing. I'm a student at Montana State University, and will be doing editing for my Native American Studies course Federal Indian Law and Policy. Thanks Misstbird 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Misstbird. Unfortunately I am not in a position to mentor students at this moment, but I'm sure you will be able to find another to assist you. Bon chance, Skomorokh 12:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are quite mistaken, but wish you the best in resolving this. Best, Skomorokh 12:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Message en route via email. Risker (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied, with regrets. Namaste, Skomorokh 12:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

groups of students in need of mentors

Hey Skom. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yo Sage. Unfortunately internet access is severely restricted for me for the time being and I would not want to commit to anything I would not be in a position to deliver on. Best, Skomorokh 12:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Im am currently a student of political science and public administration at university. I have created my Wikipage as part of a project for my political research seminar class, which is the equivalent of a capstone class. I have decided to research the topic of the deterrence effect of the death penalty on capital crimes, primarily murder. I have been instructed to find an online ambassador to be a mentor to me as a work through my research project.

I would really appreciate it if you would be my online ambassador for this project. please let me know!

Thank you, and let me know if you have any other questions or concerns!

Hello, I am afraid I am not available at present, but I hope you can find another mentor and that your experience on Wikipedia is a rewarding one. Regards, Skomorokh 12:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged reviews

I saw you reverted me; I've reverted back. I put some more explanation in talk.

To be clear, the only "reviews" that have been published are those by people "cherry picked" to be invited to a private screening, people likely to be favorable to the movie. No one else has seen the movie yet. This of course is a promotional tactic; build "buzz" among people likely interested in the movie. For film promotion, there's nothing wrong with the tactic, and there's nothing wrong with a publication accepting those terms and publishing a review (or giving their columnists free rein to write what they want about whatever they want).

Wikipedia however has a foundational policy WP:NPOV. We can't have a neutral "reception" section until a reasonable collection of non-cherry-picked folk have seen the film and written something. If the producers had let normal movie critics review the film, or pundits from across the political spectrum, then we'd have material to form a section. For us to have a section that complies with WP:NPOV, there has to have been a chance for someone critical of the film to have emerged and written about the movie. The producers, by cherry-picking the audience, have thus far insured that only positive things get into the media; any "fellow travelers" who didn't care for what they saw are likely to be quiet publicly.

In other words, when the film has been shown enough for the possibility of a negative review (even if there never are actually any bad reviews), then it will be fine to include the glowing reviews of the folks that the producers blessed with special early access. Until then, the only information we have is coming out of a controlled promotional media campaign, e.g. WP:PROMOTION. Studerby (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective (though it falls short of convincing), but this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Regards, Skomorokh 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I anoint you Sir Donald Quixote

Dear Skomorokh,

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the requested changes to the Agee Info Box entry. You have taken the high road on this and your efforts, including the promptness of your reply, are deeply appreciated. Thank you, too, for your tutoring on Wiki processes. It is helpful and reassuring to better understand how to responsibly and appropriately participate in the process of making this amazing resource as authentic as possible. As you surely realize, a huge percentage of mainstream popular and news media is sensationalized and distorted either because of a political or philosophical agenda or a financial consideration to sell as much copy as possible. There is a tendency to take a thread of veracity and turn it into a ridiculous and unfair media circus with 90% of the interviewees in an article having a biased, vested interest. This standard is regrettable - if not just plain wrong. My best thought on this is not to deny that a difference of opinion occurred but to maintain balance and a sense of fairness - specifically to make sure that any mean, vindictive, punitive, libelous views are excluded from an article even if a popular magazine published it. The person with the ink bucket wins the first round. In the end, I like to think fairer minds prevail. You have righted a wrong. I anoint you Sir Donald Quixote. All the best. Thank you again. Grateful41 Grateful41 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Apelbaum

Hi there!

You're down as the person who deleted this on it's second nomination. No, I' not going to scream about that. However, Jacob is now listed in the UCLA, EFF challenge US Government attempts to access twitter account details. That, I believe, is sufficient notability to restore.

Thoughts? --Brian McNeil /^talk 16:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Judge and executioner yes, but not jury – I'm not in a position to assess Apelbaum's notability myself. That said, I would counsel that the above listing is unlikely in itself to contribute to notability – a deceptive term meaning less importance or significance than written about in reputable publications; for the letter of the law, see the general notability guideline.

If you head over to WP:REFUND, an active administrator will be happy to restore the deleted article to your userspace (e.g. at User:Brian McMeill/Jacob_Apelbaum). Then you can improve and update it with whatever material you feel is relevant. If the updated version substantially addresses the reason for deletion, it can then be restore to the encyclopaedia at its original title. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 03:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"lark" claim

The "lark" claim is true. Take a look at the extensive discussion (search "lark") in Talk:Jimmy_Wales/Archive_13 -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Seth. I'll get back on this once present commitments have been fulfilled. Skomorokh 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship inquiry

Hi, I'm a student at Syracuse University and part of Wikipedia's Public Policy initiative. I am interested in creating and reorganizing articles on nongovernment organizations and failed states, and could certainly use your help. Please let me know if you are available to be my mentor. Thanks!

Hello, unfortunately I am not currently available to mentor students, although your research interest is fascinating and right up my alley. If you want to ask anything don't be afraid to, although I might not be able to respond promptly. Best of luck, Skomorokh 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Prediction of Wikipedia's success (or not)

I saw your query to Jimbo about early predictions on the success of Wikipedia. The day it launched, Larry said: "None of this is to say that the Nupedia wiki will replace the main encyclopedia; of course it won't. But it will be an interesting ancillary endeavor!".[1] :) Fences&Windows 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, cheers. I need to follow up on all this with some article inches... Skomorokh 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

I just want to say thanks for watching over Pattern Recognition (novel) during its TFA and for your past work with it. Cheers, maclean (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I ought to be thanking you, for your stellar work on the article over the years - it is the jewel in the crown of our Gibson articles and a standout exemplar of speculative fiction coverage. Mahalo, Skomorokh 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

`RE:Subst'ing welcome templates

Thanx, I think I got what you meant. I just added thoose cat's no too long ago. I think I got it fixed. Thanx again. Mlpearc powwow 01:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear it. Skomorokh 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RAS syndrome removals

In return for your virtuous removal of redundant acronyms, I really think someone should get you some money from the ATM machine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

...I'd do it myself if only I could remember my blasted PIN number! Skomorokh 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit

I didn't revert the talk page... at least if I did I didn't mean to. I'm confused because I never even went in the history settings on the talk page. When I got there, I got a message saying that they were moving the talk page and clicked the link that brought me to the real one. All I did when I got there was post a comment. I don't know why it said I did that.TheLastAmigo (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at that edit. I'm not sure what I did, but it definitely says I did it. I can assure you I'm not a vandal. Whatever happened there was an honest mistake and I'm not even sure how it happened to be honest. Apologies, although whatever I did I didn't mean to.TheLastAmigo (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it's fixed now and no harm done. Cheers, Skomorokh 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

hello

this is only an accidental meet with you. i want only get acquainted with somebody in wikipedia. nice to met you. hehehe. Guest005 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. Skomorokh 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your Signpost efforts. It didn't stick, but it was a laudable action. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is but a little hope. OTOH, do you think it even occurs to H. just how wrong wikipedia publishing that quote without a right of reply is? Surely no one involved with journalism, even pretend journalism, could be so out of touch? Honestly, I'd have more sympathy if it were being done out of petty spite, rather than just missing the point.

I hadn't seen the talkpage thread when I made my edit; I had been casually reading the piece when that phrase jumped out at me. I could scarcely believe it passed editorial approval, but I suppose those responsible were under some blinkered presumption that as long as it's a quotation, we can publish whatever claims we like. I think perhaps reading the rest of the publication that those running the Signpost see themselves as more conduits or aggregators of information rather than journalists. It's still a bizarrely irresponsible thing to do in a publication that ostensibly represents the English Wikipedia community, I agree. Skomorokh 10:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

David Thorne

You claim the added reference does not mention the incident. I refer you to the 5th paragraph: "Unfortunately, a few days after admitting to the fabricated memo, I was arrested, questioned and had my laptop taken for evidence under e-crime legislation." Your claim that an interview is a primary source does not match policy either. I'm not getting into an edit war today, but I will add that content back again. Thedarxide (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That claim is a primary source because all there is to go on is the word of the subject – the highly unreliable Mr. Thorne; there is no indication the publication in question lent any weight to it by independent fact-checking, and even then, it does not support the text you added. The other sources remain unacceptable and let me just say that threatening an edit war to put poorly-sourced contentious information about living persons is a very bad idea. Skomorokh 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You claim again that it doesn't support the text - demonstrate how please, as the paragraph in the article reports exactly what is written in the sources. Arguing further on the primary source front, WP:SELFPUB deals with this as far as I am concerned, even though an interview isn't a self published source in my opinion. Thedarxide (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Computer World source is the only plausibly reliable one used, but the only claim it makes is that Thorne wrote a "fake letter"; the paragraph you tried to use it to support asserted a lot more than that, simple as. You are right to say that WP:SELFPUB deals conclusively with this, as Thorne's assertions clearly apply to third parties – the letter's recipients and law enforcement, and you're trying to hang the paragraph on that self-published content. So no, none of this washes even slightly. Skomorokh 11:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Although I am sure you are trying to be helpful, the policy says Bold, Revert, Discuss. I have done that. Although I am fairly certain that Sarek's initial revert of my wording was just a knee-jerk reaction (since it was done so rapidly and with a very poor answer), each time I have gone back to the Talk page, doing research and discussing the issue. I'm Bold, someone Reverts, I go do research and we discuss. The 'D' in BRD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss ) says "There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version". I would say that there seem to be 3 camps in the discussion. Those who want no changes at all, and do not seem interested in compromise. Those who are somewhat negative and feel there is no point and say ARS will thwart all efforts for change. And finally, there are those who seem to be more reasonable and willing to explore the concerns raised and work out alternatives. I feel that I fall into that third camp. Although I have reverted to the same wording each time, I haven't been presented with any real arguments that propose alternate changes. Those in opposition have simply claimed "the wording is perfect, leave it alone, don't attack ARS". Since I have waited DAYS for people to respond to discussion, and since I continually find and often present the facts that people are not using the tag as directed, I have a hard time seeing how this is edit warring, even in slow motion, but if you can show me how following all three steps BOLD, REVERT, and DISCUSS without being given alternatives is bad, then I'm up for listening.

From the BRD page itself:

• Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors.
• However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or better yet, considerably less time than that. You want to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people "try this" or "try that" and just try to see what sticks best.

Although I am willing to try other alternatives, I would like a real discussion to occur, where the other editors actually say more than just how perfect the wording is now. In reading the Templates for Deletion archives on this yesterday, it appears that this is not the first time an editor has realized that there are issues with this wording. Those who simply revert and are dismissive of the discussion are just as easily edit warring as I could be, so again, if you have some suggestions on how to get others to participate, I'm game. I'll try alternative wording in future edits, but as I said, those editors in the 1st camp seem very much to prefer the status quo, and seem less than willing to discuss alternatives. -- Avanu (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, someone is edit warring only if they are persistently reverting, a club it's clear you are the sole member in this instance, and very close to being blocked at that. Trying to force the matter by repeatedly inserting rejected edits is not a valid discussion tactic. If you are frustrated by the progress of discussion and if (this is a big "if" now) you think the matter is truly important enough, there are well-documented means of appropriately publicising such discussions to encourage broader participation. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. Skomorokh 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Once we have a challenge to the wording, we don't have consensus anymore. I am more than willing to provide alternatives to what I initially proposed, so I'm glad you got me to read WP:BRD again, but I need to have editors on the other side willing to acknowledge the issues rather than simply say they don't exist. I'm not the sole member of Wikipedia that has brought this issue up before, its just interesting that I independently came to the same conclusion that many others have as well over the years. More comments later, gotta run. -- Avanu (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can take that anti-statusquoist position if you like, but I wouldn't expect to get very far with it. For established pages on this project, fresh consensus tends to be demanded for changes, and it just so happens you're out of reverts. Three options: convince your interlocutors, attract other ones, or walk away. Skomorokh 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on WP:BRD, if I am proposing different changes, we should be ok? I'm specifically referring to this wording from the WP:BRD page:

"However, don't get stuck on the discussion It isn't BRDDDDDD either. Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or better yet, considerably less time than that. You want to have an iterative cycle going on the page itself where people 'try this' or 'try that' and just try to see what sticks best."

I don't want to fall afoul of 3RR, but at the same time, I don't want to just give up entirely, because I think the usage of the rescue tag can be improved. -- Avanu (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If in the near future you make a substantive change to that template without first gaining consensus on the talkpage for it, you will almost certainly be blocked. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Skomorokh 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Then how do we properly follow the guidelines of that quote I just mentioned? And incidentally, I don't see what I have proposed as being all that substantive, but I understand what you mean. -- Avanu (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a guideline, it's a supplementary essay – a perspective on what to do, not a command. There is plenty of guidance in the actual policy on how to go about building consensus for change; it boils down to "convince the others" or "get wider participation". Skomorokh 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see there aren't too many people involved in the discussion yet. One unfortunate drawback of too many people is a lack of direction in the discussion, and also sadly from what I am seeing generally in Wikipedia, too often a lot of negativity from some editors. But possibly a light touch and a diligent approach might get some editors who would be willing to consider improvements/changes. A final note, I appreciate your willingness to discuss things and provide suggestions for Wikifying my editing processes. I certainly can see how it helps, but at times it almost seems that at times the process can become the major focus instead of the content. However, your help is appreciated. Thanks again. -- Avanu (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)