What are the ArbCom cases you mentioned in the RFC/U? Mindbunny ( talk) 05:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 17:33, 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 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_to_ceiling_sandwich.... 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)
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)
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)
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 - T P 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
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. 109.145.250.85 ( talk) 20:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
-- Ckatz chat spy 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)"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."
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)
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. 109.148.154.124 ( 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? 109.148.154.124 ( talk) 06:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Emilie Autumn to good article status. |
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)
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
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, ╟─ Treasury Tag► collectorate─╢ 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed they have! What fun. Thanks for the message. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 14:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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:
I hope this makes sense to you. Kind regards. -- Trevj ( talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skomorokh/Atemporality be a full wikipedia page? At present it comes up high in a google search, but not within wikipedia itself.
hello skomorokh, did you change some of the [artical st cummin,] at towordes the end of 2009. user name pcummin 80.254.146.140 ( 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 80.254.146.140 ( talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 80.254.146.140 ( 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] 80.189.40.146 ( 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)
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)
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! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
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
defamedbywikipedia.blogspot.com
This site has so terrified the Wiki-kooks that they have banned it, si I can't postg the complete link.
-Harold A. Covington
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)
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)
I'll see what I can do. A bit of uncharted territory for me, however. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
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
Thanks!
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This any good to you? Chzz ► 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:49, 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.
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)
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)
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)
Good luck with the Signpost! Kaldari ( talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
(Actually 2 emails) FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
the INFO Network Tony (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
the Nieman Journalism Lab Tony (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Tinu Cherian - 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Please see User_talk:Jorgenev#Concern_about_your_coverage_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism. -- Klein zach 04:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() 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.
Please click
HERE to take part. 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) |
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)
I'm sure you've already noticed, but just in case... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:52, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|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)
<---------------- 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)
Peace and wikilove
Quisquiliae (
talk)
19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
It's coming together a lot easier then I imagined. Res Mar 05:11, 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)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, noticed single quotemark for paraphrasing. Is that really the case? Tony (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:24, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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! Witty lama 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
I was wondering what you make of this: [7]. TallNapoleon ( talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A: A debate, commissioned for potential publication in the Signpost.
A: You know, a debate. Multiple writers opining on a topical issue.
A: I am the editor. It is my job to commission opinion pieces and to facilitate their improvement to a publishable standard, where possible.
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.
A: When it's of a publishable standard.
A: No.
A: I did. Repeatedly.
A: I honestly haven't the slightest.
A: Nowhere without submissions of opinion pieces, which the raucous and opinionated commentariat have singularly failed to step up to do.
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.
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.
A: I fail to see how I owe you anything.
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.
A: Judge us on what we publish. All else is practice.
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)
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)
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.
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.
A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written.
A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written. Skomorokh 12:29, 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)
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)
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)
Sko:
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.
TCO (
talk)
06:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 explained...it 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WikiPuppies! ( bark) 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
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, Res Mar 02:25, 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)
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)
![]() |
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 :) Res Mar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Just saw your banner. Hope you get better soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
hi smaster tony i have instructions from hospital after skomorohk jasper deng wont let me post email natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.180.91 ( talk • contribs)
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)
![]() |
Get well quick |
Do have a speedy recovery. =) Cheers, Res Mar 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
What are the ArbCom cases you mentioned in the RFC/U? Mindbunny ( talk) 05:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 17:33, 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 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_to_ceiling_sandwich.... 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)
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)
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)
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 - T P 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
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. 109.145.250.85 ( talk) 20:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
-- Ckatz chat spy 07:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)"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."
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)
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. 109.148.154.124 ( 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? 109.148.154.124 ( talk) 06:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Emilie Autumn to good article status. |
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)
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
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, ╟─ Treasury Tag► collectorate─╢ 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed they have! What fun. Thanks for the message. – Cliftonian the orangey bit 14:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
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:
I hope this makes sense to you. Kind regards. -- Trevj ( talk) 07:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skomorokh/Atemporality be a full wikipedia page? At present it comes up high in a google search, but not within wikipedia itself.
hello skomorokh, did you change some of the [artical st cummin,] at towordes the end of 2009. user name pcummin 80.254.146.140 ( 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 80.254.146.140 ( talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 80.254.146.140 ( 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] 80.189.40.146 ( 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)
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)
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! --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
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
defamedbywikipedia.blogspot.com
This site has so terrified the Wiki-kooks that they have banned it, si I can't postg the complete link.
-Harold A. Covington
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)
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)
I'll see what I can do. A bit of uncharted territory for me, however. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
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
Thanks!
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This any good to you? Chzz ► 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:49, 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.
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)
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)
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)
Good luck with the Signpost! Kaldari ( talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
(Actually 2 emails) FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
the INFO Network Tony (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
the Nieman Journalism Lab Tony (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Tinu Cherian - 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Please see User_talk:Jorgenev#Concern_about_your_coverage_of_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism. -- Klein zach 04:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() 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.
Please click
HERE to take part. 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) |
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)
I'm sure you've already noticed, but just in case... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:52, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|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)
<---------------- 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)
Peace and wikilove
Quisquiliae (
talk)
19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
It's coming together a lot easier then I imagined. Res Mar 05:11, 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)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, noticed single quotemark for paraphrasing. Is that really the case? Tony (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:24, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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! Witty lama 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
I was wondering what you make of this: [7]. TallNapoleon ( talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A: A debate, commissioned for potential publication in the Signpost.
A: You know, a debate. Multiple writers opining on a topical issue.
A: I am the editor. It is my job to commission opinion pieces and to facilitate their improvement to a publishable standard, where possible.
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.
A: When it's of a publishable standard.
A: No.
A: I did. Repeatedly.
A: I honestly haven't the slightest.
A: Nowhere without submissions of opinion pieces, which the raucous and opinionated commentariat have singularly failed to step up to do.
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.
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.
A: I fail to see how I owe you anything.
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.
A: Judge us on what we publish. All else is practice.
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)
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)
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.
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.
A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written.
A: You either haven't read, or don't understand what I've already clearly written. Skomorokh 12:29, 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)
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)
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)
Sko:
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.
TCO (
talk)
06:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 explained...it 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WikiPuppies! ( bark) 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
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, Res Mar 02:25, 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)
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)
![]() |
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 :) Res Mar 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Just saw your banner. Hope you get better soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
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. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 23:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
hi smaster tony i have instructions from hospital after skomorohk jasper deng wont let me post email natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.180.91 ( talk • contribs)
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)
![]() |
Get well quick |
Do have a speedy recovery. =) Cheers, Res Mar 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)