User talk:Skomorokh

Your GA nomination of CrimethInc.

The article CrimethInc. you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:CrimethInc. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Pattern Recognition (novel). What would the article need for your support at an FAC? --maclean 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy of Prunus jamasakura

I removed your tag as it is not a G4 - at least not under that name even if capitalized. As for the merits of the article itself I leave that to the judgment of others. Agathoclea (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the matter has been dealt with appropriately. скоморохъ 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure

Hi, I noticed that you did a Non-admin closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics of decompilation. While there was nothing especially wrong with what you did, non-admin closure for AfD that result in delete is a bad idea. Since there has to be an admin doing the actual delete anyway, you have not saved anyone any work. I found the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but I still had to go to the AfD page to make sure it was a valid close as delete; it was just as many steps as it would have taken to close the AfD and delete the article. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course mistaken in your claim of unreduced workload, but I appreciate your sentiment. Regards, скоморохъ 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the warning to the little charmer who vandalized my userpage. I am glad that you are paying attention. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, we cannot tolerate the homosexual agenda being advanced where our children could be reading. скоморохъ 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly not! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Vacuum Coaters

Hi, I've restored the Society of Vacuum Coaters article. It isn't about a social club. The article was written by a new editor who seems to be an expert wikipedian who just hasn't learned all the ropes around here yet. I've wikified it a bit and requested at User talk:Don Mattox that he add more clarifying material. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll add a tag to warn off other speedy patrollers. скоморохъ 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gael-Taca

A press release and a newspaper story that mentions it in passing don't establish notability. You need multiple independent sources that discuss the subject directly. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to give editors working on contested deletions a respectful period in which to repair problematic articles, and at the very least engage in the discussion on the talkpage. Overriding consensus and prematurely nuking nascent articles is an unfortunate use of administrative tools. Regards, скоморохъ 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish I can copy this deleted material onto a user subpage User:Skomorokh/Gael-Taca draft and you can work on improving it and finding new sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much appreciated, thanks. Can you make it User:Skomorokh/Gael-Taca? скоморохъ 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, good luck! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Nasty nasty blunt for deletion

Hi, I recently nominated this article for deletion, but then noticed that you also did this a few days before me. It looks like an anonymous editor is removing the AFD tags. What should we do to take care of this situation? I just wanted to keep you in the loop. Thanks, Iepeulas (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. In one way, my prod was proposed more than 5 days ago so the article is eligible for deletion, but on the other hand some anon removed it before the five days were up. I think all we can do is caution the anon for removing tags and wait for someone to improve the article or for the 5 days to come up. If there's any trouble, we can simply take it to WP:Afd. What do you think? Regards, скоморохъ 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I politely warned the anon, I'll keep an eye on it, if someone removes the tag I'll tag it for AFD. Thanks, Iepeulas (talk)

Alternative society

Not that you need anything else for you watchlist, but just take a gander at this article and tell me if you think it is worthy of rescuing. It has been on my watchlist for a while, but I forgot about it. At this point, it is a catchall for a whole lot of stuff that is already covered elsewhere and better. I am particularly amused by the "see also" list which is almost longer than the rest of the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fret, it's already under my watchful eye. I'm inclined to split with extreme prejudice to intentional community, underground culture, alternative lifestyle/culture, utopianism etc and replace with a disambiguation page. As it stands, the article has no single subject, just a vague sprawling mess. скоморохъ 05:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can think of no way to save it. It tries to cover everything, and does none of it well. I am more than happy to help with the pruning shears. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory pre-shear consultation. скоморохъ 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in Cuba

Hey, thanks for all the formatting help on this article. Mojitios all around! Murderbike (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, congrats to you on your first GA dude! Viva la revolucion скоморохъ 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient market hypothesis as pseudoscience

How is there a NPOV issue with identifying falsified hypotheses?

Treating the idea that the hypothesis is pseudoscience as fact without citing any reliable sources to support the claim is simply you expressing your point of view on the matter. The idea that the EMH is pseudoscience is not uncontroversial, so you need to find journal articles, books etc. that classify it as a pseudoscience. Please ask if there's anything else I can help you with. скоморохъ 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett

Hello, I'm 72.187.112.172. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scarlett Johansson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.

72.187.112.172 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]