User talk:Skomorokh/拾壹

[edit] Brian Leiter

Hi, I reverted your last edit on talk:Brian Leiter. I know where you're coming from, but there is a difference between critique and criticism, and we need to be mindful of the difference. We also need to be aware that in many cases subjects do try to fix problems with their articles or the talk pages, and this is actually good, it's better than a fax from their lawyer (trust me, I have to deal with some of those). So please take a deep breath and see if you can assist the subject, if it is him, without seeming to accuse him and without being excessively aggressive towards him. Those subjects who are trying to whitewash their articles or pursue off-wiki disputes, show their colours readily enough without provocation, and can be relied on to get themselves banned in short order. It's a lot simpler to deal with difficult characters and legal complaints if we have made a big sow of being really fair to them up front. If we are polite, fair and calm and they still make trouble, they haven't a leg to stand on. And if they don't, well, that's all the better, isn't it? Thanks for bringing this to the noticeboard, and I hope you will take this i the spirit of friendly advice from one who has seen a lot of communications form article subjects ranging from respected academics libelled by fascists, to outright kooks, with all shades in between. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a comprehensive response. The article is on the periphery of my interest/expertise, so it's not likely that I will be involved in any solutions to the difficulties there; I simply noticed the mass removal of comments on my watchlist and thought I should notify the BLP-watchers. You might find it useful to post the above ideas on the article talk page, where they might find a more attuned audience. Keep up the good work, скоморохъ 20:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. It is much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I had/have no idea what constitutes "a Goidelic waddle duck" but my spidey senses told me it is not a self-description you would leap at... скоморохъ 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am surprised the fella knew the word "Goidelic." But, I haven't any idea what a "waddle duck" is, nor do I assume it is a compliment. He is a charmer, though, the scamp. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Sierra

How's it look now? Murderbike (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

De nada. Why couldn't you use Commons? Murderbike (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre. I don't have any idea what would cause that. Have you tried an admin or the help page? Murderbike (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, understandable. That's why I pretty much only upload stuff there that's my own or very clearly in the public domain. Licensing shit is mind-bogglingly complex. Murderbike (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Friend

I'm curious as to whether you have any idea just what a fucking douche bag you are.

Let me know

--- THE Joe Torres

I am sadly unaware of my current level of douchebaggery as I haven't been tested lately on account of my lack of comprehensive health insurance. I take solace in the Socratic oath "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance". Please accept my apologies, Joseph Torres, Esquire 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] howdy

this is actually ghost accounty- it's just most of my edits are anon. i actually added the culture, issues, history and related sections some months back to the template. it's a shame we have to add all that "anarcho"-capitalist rubbishness, but they get all crybaby when we don't include them - they hijacked the word libertarian and now they're trying to hijack the word anarchist :(80.42.1.90 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

why spoil all the fun?

Why indeed. Skomorokh 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

an encylopedia for fun - and the free dissemination of misinformation - that's how i and so many others view it. perhaps you could take the fact that this viewpoint is so prevalent up with the creators of Wikipedia themselves.

Alternatively, it is a battleground for any and all with opinions on what it should be. Be warned, your joie de vivre will never match the remorseless plodding persistence of the squares. If Wikipedia has taught the thrill-seeking dadistic troll anything, it is not to fight the nerd on her own battlefield, but to ridicule her on Dramatica.Skomorokh 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Left anarchism

I was making some minor fixes to this article, and I have a question. Do you think there is a way that we could turn the "notes" into inline references? I looked back through the history, and I understand now why you chose that route. I had a go at trying to include all of the relevant information, but only managed to bugger it up. Luckily, I was only previewing, so no harm done. But, I may give it another attempt tomorrow, perhaps when I am not so tired. The article has other issues, and this is not that important, but I may make another sortie anyway. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and references are categorically different; the norm for academic scholarship, for example, is to list footnotes at the end of individual pages, using inline citations of the form (Author, 19XX) and listing works cited in the bibliography. The only difference here is that it's possible to link works cited directly to the bibliography.

The in initial approach for this particular article was to put the "notes" in parentheses inline, but this disrupted the flow of the sentence and violated WP:WEIGHT (e.g. equal space in the same sentence for Heider's scholarship and the secondary literature of it). Looking at the notes vs. the references in the current version, both sections are stylistically distinct and discrete, one in explanatory prose, the other in list form. We could switch to Harvard referencing format, but as page numbers are not used in the article, I'm not at all convinced it would be an improvement. But of course be bold! Skomorokh 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 28 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katie Sierra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 13:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolian death worm

What's the connection between this bizarre pseudo-beast and "Spook Country"? "See other" refers at the top of articles are placed only when the article names are so similar that they might be confused. If the worm is a character in the book, then it should be placed in a "see also" refer at the bottom. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an alternate title for the novel. Individuals searching for the novel Mongolian Death Worm by William Gibson are best directed to the Spook Country article. Regards, Skomorokh 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CrimethInc. images

Yep, that's my account. I'm not so sure I want to release that one under CC, though, as it has my name in the photo. -- LGagnon 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doh - sorry

Didn't mean to remove that from Wikipedia talk:Notability, which I think I did =D Mea Culpa! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

De nada, a world with no mistakes would be a boring one indeed. Skomorokh 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor recipients

Thanks for fixing those broken brackets. I usually do several at a time and then I go back and clean up any broken links if there are any. Appreciate the help though.--Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. thank you for the articles. Skomorokh 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morita (Starship Troopers)

There is no reason for it to be deleted. There needs to be more articles about Starship Troopers and everything in the article is fact. General Mannino (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ontheball Raymond888

What is wrong with ontheball, nothing I say. I bet you if a admin write it, it would not be delted. Ray-Rays (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article did not have any assertion of notability - it did not indicate why the topic was of encyclopaedian value. Wikipedia does not publish articles on unimportant topics, and you did not do anything to indicate that the subject of your article was in any way important. You are probably right that the article would not have been deleted if an admin wrote it, because an admin would probably know better than to write an article on a non-notable subject. If you do think it is a notable subject, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Your first article, gather a few references in reliable sources that show the subject is notable, and write the article citing those references. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, I'd be happy to help. Skomorokh 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acracy

I googled this phrase and most of the results for Acracy were not about anarchism, i think if we cant find any reliable sources for the existence of this term its article should be deleted.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for drastic action just yet; Google books shows usage in Chomskyian political theory, so the terms existence at least is verified, whatever about its notability or the usefulness as an article. I've asked the creator of the article to shed some light on the situation. If no satisfactory suggestions for improving the article are forthcoming in the near future we can talk about merging or deleting the article. What do you think? Skomorokh 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even remember where I heard the term, and I can't see that there's too much to say about it. I'm not sure that it means anything different than anarchism, as the roots attest: acracy = without rule, anarchy = without ruler. Quite probably it could be sent to Wiktionary or simply deleted. Owen (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please read the talk page of Technocracy movement

Thank you. skip sievert (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

You cannot close an article as "keep" that was voted merge without a very good explanation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If consensus is to merge, how do you propose to effect that outcome if the text to be merged is deleted? Think about it. Even if you had an administrator with access to the deleted content, and this admin added the text to the article it was supposed to be merged to, the terms of the GDFL would be violated as the contributors to the merged text would not be recognised. You could have an administrator then perform a page history merge, but such a means of acheiving the same outcome with added bureaucracy and administrator workload is senseless, time-consuming and entirely superfluous. Afd is not a forum for requesting or confirming merges; that is for article talkpage consensus to decide. Regards,Skomorokh 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have been watching AFD in the last year, you know that that isn't how AFD currently operates. Very commonly, closers confirm mergers by saying "Consensus was Merge" or simply "Merge". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching Afd, thank you, and calling such outcomes "merge" is inaccurate unless the closer intends to perform the merge themselves. Articles for deletion have one of two outcomes: delete or do not delete; representing closures as anything else is disingenuous. Skomorokh 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note on Feast of the Goat

Hi -- just noticed you've picked up Feast of the Goat to do the GA review. If you haven't already seen them, you might be interested in WP:MMM, an educational project, which the article is part of, and this, which is a talk page for the FA team, a group of editors assisting the students. That group has done several of the GA reviews to date on the twelve articles that these students have worked on.

I don't want to inappropriately influence your review, but since the students are quite active on the articles, most of the reviews so far have taken the approach that if the article would normally be a fail, we place it on hold instead and give the students a chance to fix it. Forty percent of their grade depends on the article, so they're motivated to respond! Generally they've responded very well to this. Anyway, just FYI. And of course if you're interested in joining the FA team work and helping these students after you do the GA review, you'd be welcome -- the end of semester is approaching and there's a lot of activity. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I had seen the project and was intending on taking the course of action you advise. The article is quite a ways off fulfilling GA criteria in terms of tone, referencing of statements, wikification, and general quality of writing, and I would not normally expect such an article to overcome these issues in one week, but I am more than willing to give it a chance under the circumstances. Any further advice appreciated. Skomorokh 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that these users are relatively new to Wikipedia, I'd say the most helpful thing is to provide as much detail as you have time for on the fixes. I or others in the FA team will probably help them with anything related to formatting, copyediting, MOS and so on, but they'll have to do the research and content work themselves. They've been very good at going down lists of actions and dealing with them. Thanks; I hope you can find time to look in at the other articles -- I recall your work at William Gibson and you'd be a great asset to the FA team. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, review done. Let me know if it is too harsh. I am enthused to learn of the existence of an FA-team but I note with trepidation that you do not engage in adding content to articles. Alas, my sole editorial acumen lies in harvesting content from esoteric sources, and I tend to hide under the nearest available item of furniture during the copy-editing stage of a nomination, while irate commentators berate my abuse of apostrophes and hold forth on the minutiae of correct em-dash use. As such, I'm afraid I wouldn't be of much use to your cadre, but best of luck nevertheless. Skomorokh 00:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amilcare Cipriani

On 3 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amilcare Cipriani, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Bell

I think the removal of the Bob Murphy photo on Jim Bell is constructive. There is no photo of Jim Bell, and the including of the Murphy photo is therefore misleading to anyone who scans the page without reading the caption. The policy you reference states: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significant relative to the article's topic", but Bob Murphy's picture is neither. The Bob Murphy picture does appear on Bob Murphy, so I'm not trying to delete it from WP, just restrict it to a non-spammy context. Aminorex (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses Murphy's work in more than a passing fashion; thus Murphy is clearly relevant to the article, and significant relative to the section of the article in which the image is displayed. The insinuation that the image is being included in a "spammy context" is does not appear to be assuming good faith - do you really think I went to the trouble of writing the entire article in order to promote some low-resolution image of a marginally notable economist, an image to which I have no claim? Please, let's be serious. Drive-by-removal of free, relevant images is not at all constructive; if you wish to make a constructive change to the article, why not try and find appropriate free images to use? I would be more than happy to remove the Murphy image if superior images were available. Until then, to remove the only illustration in the article is preposterous. If you wish to pursue the matter, I think it would be best to do so on the article talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spook Country

(How can you read this tiny font? egad!) See the Talk page for Mongolian Death Worm - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[amended]. Skomorokh 11:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same person?

Hi, I noticed you remarked on user Rosalie Hale's talk page that her cousin Sofia seems to be suffering from dissociative identity disorder... For the last few days, I've been wondering if User:Sofia Vladislava, User:Silvereclipsehelena08 and User:Melanie Scarlett, and now User:Rosalie Hale, are all the same person. Somno (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The thought had crossed my mind, but none of these accounts seem to have done anything warranting a WP:RFCU, so I don't see any course of action here. Skomorokh 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Aside from a vote from Silvereclipsehelena08 on an RFA for Sofia Vladislava, there doesn't seem to be anything warranting a checkuser request. Somno (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reckoning

A short time ago I noticed you were working on a sub template for the ATF. Perhaps a solution to the vague assessment scale is within reach. I commend your efforts. However, I am concerned about the necessity for increased bureaucracy within the group. There may yet be an alternative. I have now found that WikiProject Novels has also addressed the issue of task-force importance ratings on their template. Their solution was to create sub-importance ratings for Task Forces. No increased bureaucracy was necessary. Although I recognize that WikiProject Philosophy has been slow in responding to the ATF's requests in the past, perhaps it would be worth pressing this example upon them? If the powers-that-be recognize the ease with which this was accomplished, the gears of the machine may turn quickly.--Cast (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought that was public knowledge. I didn't intend on taking my sandbox live, be assured. I don't agree with the consensus at the ATF until now that importance should be for philosophy and not anarchism, for the simple reason that most of our articles on anarchism (infoshops, revolutionaries, activist groups) have very little to do with philosophy. The task force assessment solution sounds ideal. If we can get a working sandbox model going, I agree we should present it to WikiProject Philosophy; if they don't respond, we should just go ahead anyway as it would only formalize existing norms rather than create new ones. I will attempt at sandboxing an amended {{philosophy}} template at User:Skomorokh/Reckoning. Skomorokh 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're project was not public knowledge. I am merely a bored internet detective. I share your dissatisfaction with the general consensus to defer to the ATF's parent project in assessment. That said, I will fully endorse your separate Task Force template if need be. There is precedent in its creation, of course, and I believe you would be able to convince our WP:Philosophy overlords in its implementation. One way or another, your efforts will resolve the matter.--Cast (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your "I am merely a bored internet detective." comment followed by a link to a serial killer template doesn't trigger any anti-terror filters! I don't think the separate template is necessary; the trend is definitely towards integrating related templates (i.e. WikiProject South Africa shares the same template as WikiProject Africa). The amended version of the {{philosophy}} template is good to go at User:Skomorokh/Reckoning, the only issue is the extent to which the other philosophy task forces should be amended to fit. So {{User:Skomorokh/Reckoning|class=stub|importance=low|anarchism=yes|nested=yes|aesthetics=yes|analytic=yes|literature=yes|anarchism-importance=top}} yields: {{User:Skomorokh/Reckoning|class=stub|importance=low|anarchism=yes|nested=yes|aesthetics=yes|analytic=yes|literature=yes|anarchism-importance=top}}

See the categories at the bottom of this page to figure out the details. What do you think? Skomorokh 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks excellent to me. I'm not certain what changes will be needed to amend all of the task forces. I would imagine the general desire would be to give all of them individual importance ratings. Secondary tags for separate featured portal articles may be incorporated by those overlords with greater authority on the subject. The issue of how to incorporate portal pointers may not come up, though I would like there to be some way to add multiple ones to the template. There can be a philosophy pointer, but no anarchism pointer? For shame. If nothing else, the alteration of the red dot for the black flag is a welcome change. At least shifting the task force images should be easy. That may be one of the easier amendments to request.--Cast (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism portal pointer support added (see above). I tried in vain to integrate {{anarcho-article}} but the "date=April 2008" proved to complicated to fit in; it could be just as well to leave the notice prominently unhidden on talkpages. The images are no big deal to change, I agree. I don't know if any of the other task forces (are they even active?) would be interested in their own assessment programme, given that, apart from Marxism, they are all 100% philosophy, making separate stats somewhat, though not entirely, redundant. Skomorokh 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The other task forces seem to be barely active, if not entirely stagnant, but I think they could all utilize the sub-importance rating. Consider Oscar Wilde as an example. He is significant to WP:Philosophy as a low importance article. Within that project, he is listed under three task forces: Philosopher, Asthetics, and Anarchism. I imagine he might receive a low for Philosopher and Anarchism, but possibly a mid for Asthetics. Another example: Emma Goldman. She would be high for anarchism, but as a philosopher, low or mid. There are other examples, but my point is simply that each task force should be able to point out what level of importance the topic article has.--Cast (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolai Lossky

You must help me Skomorokh. This concept of no corporations but instead co-ops. That seems to be expressed under the idea of libertarian socialism. Like Djilas wrote about what would it then be called if not libertarian socialism? Maybe fabian socialism? Hey I tried to add Professor Lossky to the libertarian metaphysical article but they deleted him [1] from there stating that he was not a philosopher. Please help. LoveMonkey (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. It's important to note that we can't give Lossky's philosophy any label he hasn't been given in a reliable source. The Sciabarra paper says Lossky was anti-materialist and anti-communist. Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Europe calls him an "intuitivist", and Philosophy of Economy: The World as Household an "intuitionist". Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Berdyaev gives a good overview of his philosophy, and it very safe to say that Lossky was not known as a "libertarian" in the political sense nor a metaphysical libertarian (in the sense of believing in free will and denying determinism). I couldn't find anything about corporations or co-operatives. Regards, Skomorokh 07:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Love

Before I send it to WP:DRV, would you consider reversing your closure and re-list this AfD? I feel that you did not take into consideration the fact that notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums ("unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources") was not shown and that the majority of the keep arguments boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or a misinterpretation of WP:MUSIC. Thanks for your time. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that on a strict reading, the article may not meet current notability guidelines, and that many of the participants in the discussion did not seem to display a keen grasp of guidelines. However, I also consider to be valid arguments those which disagree with guidelines; in this case, the argument that WP:V trumps WP:N, and to a lesser extent that notability for artists is inherited by their albums (consider the existing norm of bands inheriting notability because one of their members is/was/became a member of a notable band). So I disagree that the keep arguments were misinterpretations of WP:MUSIC – they were reinterpretations. Notability guidelines evolve over time, and if there is no support for existing guidelines within the community, as in this case, the applicability of guidelines changes. Other factors which weighed on the closure were that the article had not been tagged with anything to give the impression that it was in danger of deletion, such as a {{notability}} or {{refimprove}} tag, that a prod had been declined, and that good faith attempts were being made to add reliable sources.

But the most important reason the discussion was closed as keep is that there was absolutely no consensus to delete – after five days of listing, not one Wikipedian agreed with your position. I recommend not listing it at DRV, but slapping a notability tag on it, giving any unsupported content in the article two weeks before excising it, moving any unreliably sourced content to the talkpage, and if, a month from now, it is clear that notability is not established, relist it at Afd, this time notifying the relevant WikiProjects and taskforces. Regards, Skomorokh 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, the added links you came up with (that the hard-core fans could not find for some reason) convince me that there is enough coverage to keep the article. Thanks again for your time. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Stay vigilant, Skomorokh 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)