User talk:Skomorokh

[edit] K.J. Stevens

Hey Skomorokh,

This is Rimbaud 2--the guy who created the Raegan Butcher entry. I recently created an entry for K.J. Stevens--a novelist and short story writer from Alpena, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.J._Stevens . Since you did such a kick-ass job editing and adding to the Butcher entry, I was wondering if you would be interested in the Stevens entry?

I main problem I have, again, is with the reference formatting (I tried to copy what you did, but to no avial). The rest is explained on the discussion page. I plan to keep on editing and adding to the entry for the next couple of days (or weeks or whatever).

Thanks for you contribuations to the Butcher entry, and I hope to hear back from you sometime.

Yours Truly, Rimbaud 2 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

Hi, You did great work on the article today! Thanks. I've unwatched it. No one cares about the sources I've provided. They just breeze over them and agree with Edward. It's too much of a waste of time to fight on. I'm going to focus on other articles. Best regards! Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry I dragged your talk page into my disagreement with "Bert." Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#r -Atfyfe (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page for May 4

Hello - the facts are not in dispute here. As I said to ZZ, to say merely that the Ohio National Guard shot at students is like only saying that John Wilkes Booth shot at Abraham Lincoln. The salient point about Kent State isn't that the Guard shot, it's that they killed four students. My rewording didn't add POV, it merely added the central facts which are that the Guard shot and killed 4 students and wounded nine others. My comment on the error page may have been more dramatic than that, but the wording I suggested for the item was not. Tvoz/talk 14:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good day. Your comment that the page was "grossly inaccurate" did seem to be disputing the facts. I would agree that the salient point is that the students were killed, but it's simply a misstatement to label incorrect the assertion that they were shot, which is what you did. That, and that alone was my point. Regards, Skomorokh 15:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right that I didn't express myself well. My point is that to say only that the Guard shot them is to minimize the salient point that they killed 4. I was not disputing that they were shot, I am saying that we ought to be saying that there were deaths. Meanwhile, it's gone completely now which was obviously not my intent, Tvoz/talk 05:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll rewrite you, pal!

I really appreciate this comment, buddy. I will be redirecting any and all of his messages right on to you... Some friend you are. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! Skomorokh 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that a Nelson Muntz "Ha ha!" or an 'all-in-good-fun-ol'-chap' "Ha ha!"? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

A question of such hermeneutic weight cannot be faithfully answered without due recourse to the inherently unstable power dynamic between unreconstructed subjects vis the necessary caveats related to the immanent difficulties surrounding the mediated Dasein qua modernist notions of essentialist personal identity and the necessary epistemological gap in interpretating the transcendental text-as-lived. Or shall we say that question will be settled if our mutual friend shows up at your talkpage armed with good faith and heightened expectations... Skomorokh 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you go gettin' hi-falutin' with me, buddy. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Atkins may be valid

I was headed to Benjamin Atkins since you tagged it as an attack page, but upon a bit of investigating, it may actually be a valid topic - granted, it needs to be sourced, but there was a sourced version on the German Wikipedia. I've discussed this in the talk page of the article, and linked to the sources the German Wikipedia used. Just wanted to let you know! -- Natalya 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've commented on the page. It needs to be speedied or sourced, I'd prefer the latter but it needs to be done asap. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Skomorokh 23:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No yeah, the lack of sources is definitly an issue. Hopefully it can become a valid article instead; thanks for your diligence. -- Natalya 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be safe now. A pleasure working with you. Skomorokh 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. A pleasure the same! -- Natalya 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] well done

Kudos for your good work on the Aliza Shvarts affair. Well done. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very kind of you to say so, thank you. Thanks also for your input at the Deletion review. Regards, Skomorokh 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hello! :) Thanks for joining Portal:Feminism/Feminism_Task_Force. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

Heh, fortunately, it is that good, a big improvement on the previous year or so that kept me in my house far too much. And a close friend said something that kind of shook me in to realizing it. I'm sure there'll be occasions for me to pop in and do some stuff, but for now, I'm gonna use the outside world to learn stuff instead of this one. Feel free to send a note about anything important though, I'm not completely abandoning the project. Have fun!!! Murderbike (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock on, muchacho. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rand Anon IP RfC

Looking at the dispute resolution protocol, I've made an RfC regarding one of the anon IPs who's trolling this article. Since you've been involved in a dispute with this person please post your observations here [1]. Idag (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I think there is community consensus that the individual in question has exhausted his good faith and formal mediation is unnecessary. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merges

You may have just done this by mistake, but please try to be symmetrical when adding merge templates, as you did on Google search (i.e. one is needed on I'm Feeling Lucky. Richard001 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I have that covered. Stay vigilant, Skomorokh 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rename of Aliza_Shvarts_abortion_art_controversy

Can you look at Talk:Aliza_Shvarts_abortion_art_controversy and comment on the clarification that I made for the renaming? I think that all editors that commented against using the university name have agreed on using "Yale student" on the title. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question about a user using his main page for a mock up article on Technocracy movement

Is that a good idea..? or should it be done that way? This user is making a site on his user page of a mock copy of what he says is a future article. Is this not confusing or would be for people stumbling on it from google or elsewhere ? I added the disclaimer on the top of the users mock up. Was that a good idea ? Should not this mock article be done in a sand box instead of a page that could until I put the disclaimer on it be misconstrued for a real wiki article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Firebladed/newtincdraft User:Firebladed/newtincdraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Please act and inform accordingly as to appropriateness and policy. I will mention this to a couple other people for feed back. skip sievert (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nestor Makhno

The edits by Mzajac is problematic in the article. He changed the lead of the article (this version) and added a misleading sentence "He supported the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian Directory, the Bolsheviks again, and then turned to organizing the Free Territory of Ukraine". This user is trying to depict that support for Bolshevism was part of Makhno's ideology. A discussion is going on in Mzajac misrepresentation. Please join the debate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SEP

Hello. I've replied to you in Template talk:Sep entry and am interested in your response. trespassers william (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative society, a plan of action

Having just reverted some unreferenced and unhelpful edits to this article, I am once again reminded of the necessity of getting rid of it. Here is the plan I would suggest:

"Alternative alternatives" is useless, and could be lost altogether with no harm done.

There might be some useful information in the brief "Underground press" section that can be moved over to that article.

The "environmentalism" section says nothing that is not dealt with better in a number of other articles, so it can be cut w/ no loss.

"Building alternative services" has information that could be merged into the intentional communities article.

"Christiania" does not say anything that is not already said in the main article, so it can be removed altogether.

"Religious and pseudo-religious groups" is a mess, full of speculation, POV language, and a lot of rubbish. I am not sure that any of it is salvageable, or, if it were, where it would go. Do you have any ideas?

The section on the "Situationist International," interestingly, does not really talk about the SI much, and what it does say is not useful. Nothing there that is useful, in my humble opinion.

"The end of an era?" section, likewise, is not useful. Speculation, redlinks, and POV language again.

The question I then have is, after all the cutting and pasting is done, where should alternative society redirect? It has to redirect somewhere, right? Any thoughts you have on this would be appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the (rewritten?) article and go to town on it per the plan of attack given the absence of dissent on the talkpage unless it has been radically improved. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You ok?

Everything ok over there? You seem to have disappeared... Give us a wave and let us know you are still amongst the living. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lo siento; it's that time of year, and a girl's gotta eat. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queens of the Stone Age WikiProject

Hi, I've recently done a sort of overhaul to the Queens of the Stone Age WikiProject and was hoping you'd check it out. There's a new user banner as well. Red157(talk • contribs) 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo Red, long time no see. Qotsa articles are not among my top priorities at the moment (the band aren't up to much) but I'm glad you're taking initiative with the project and I'll see what I can contribute. Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOSDATE

Hi, regarding this message: I'm not 100% sure, but it seems correct to say "the 3 April 1850 issue". I suppose it does sound awkward, so perhaps we could change it to "the La Voix du Peuple issue of 3 April 1850"? Also, thanks for consulting me first. :) —LOL (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should find a way to both abide by the MoS and have sound prose. The second bullet of WP:MOSDATE#Exceptions states that "The numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out", and that's true because I can't recall the last time I've seen someone spell out the day of a month. I'm not familiar with using this date format in prose, so I asked for a third opinion at #wikipedia and one user told me that it's fine in its current state. Do you think we can leave it as it is? —LOL (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just following the guidelines independently. If this really is a serious issue, then perhaps you can bring it up to WT:MOSDATE and they might provide reasons for this peculiar date format. Best regards, LOL (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Your signature is upside down and very, very hard to read. Might you please change it? Bstone (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainement. Skomorokh 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)