User talk:Skomorokh/肆

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.wiki.x.io/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

well done

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

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)[reply]

Thanks!

Hello! :) Thanks for joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.wiki.x.io/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

CAMIE Awards

Hi, Skomorokh. I am pretty inexperienced with Wikipedia, so please bear with me. I just created my first Wikipedia page today, on the CAMIE Awards: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/CAMIE_Awards

I noticed you tagged it quickly for "Notability".

I think the CAMIE awards are notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. For example, what prompted me to create the article is that I myself (who am not affiliated with the CAMIEs at all) was interested in which movies won the awards a couple of years ago. I thought, "I'll just pop over to Wikipedia and look at the historical award list". I obviously found that there wasn't a Wikipedia article--so I created one.

In perhaps a more compelling piece of evidence, if you search google for "CAMIE awards" (with quotes), you come up with over 4,000 references--practically none of them to the CAMIE website itself (which is where I obviously got most of the info for writing the article). http://www.google.com/search?q=%22camie+awards%22

So, my question is do you seriously think that these awards are not notable enough? Or did you just apply the tag out of general principles since more of the references I used were from the CAMIE website?

How would you recommend I proceed? I put in more work than it might look like, and I don't want to see the article die!

Yours Truly, John Colton (talk) Johncolton (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo John, welcome to the encyclopedia. Thanks for the article on CAMIE Awards, it looks good, and the only problems arise out of inexperience with Wikipedia customs rather than merit. Wikipedia has a guideline on notability that basically requires that in order to qualify for an article, a topic must have non-trivial coverage (e.g. a devoted newspaper article) in third party reliable sources. A lot of new articles from new contributors that have no third party references are hoaxes; before I googled it, I suspected the "CAMIE awards" was a hoax, but they obviously exist. The only problem is that the article needs to reflect the third party coverage, so that notability is asserted. Check out Wikipedia:How to cite sources for a guide on this. A good way to proceed is to add references to some of these news articles to google news. You could create a "References" section and add something like "Journalist surname, Firstname. "Name of story involving CAMIE". Newspaper title, date". Please ask if you have any further questions! Regards, Skomorokh 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. When I get a bit more time I'll work on adding some additional journalistic references. When I do that, is it OK for me to remove the "notability" and the "primary sources" tags? Or should I wait let a more experienced wikipedia person like yourself do that? John Johncolton (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I don't think anyone is going to delete the article soon. It's generally recommended that you don't remove notability tags on articles you have created yourself, for reasons of conflict of interest, not inexperience (as notability is somewhat subjective); the primarysources tag can go once that issue is resolved. If in doubt Be bold! Skomorokh 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now added several references to newspaper articles such as the ones you pointed out from Google News. If you don't mind, please revisit the article and remove the tags if you deem appropriate. Thanks. Johncolton (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Done Great work, that's a nice little article you've got there; you might consider submitting a fact from it to Did You Know? to have it featured on the main page. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice! --Johncolton (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Diablo Cody

Hi, Skomorokh, I wanted to provide some context for my revert of your edit at Diablo Cody. You cited WP:MOSFILM as a reason for removing "Academy Award-winning" from the lead, which is misleading. The article in question does not really apply to the MOS guideline because it's not a film article. Although film related, it's a biography. I see nothing at WP:MOSBIO which discourages such things in the lead, but please do tell me if there is something out there specifically for bios. I believe there has been precedence set in film-bios for Oscar winners, since William Monahan, which I incorrectly linked to in my edit summary, uses this statement and is currently Featured. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 20:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butcher

Do you really believe Butcher is solely notable for his criminal activity? Butcher bacame notable for writings after conviction. Please read the category. It requires that the subject be solely notable for their crimes. This is hardly the judgment call you assert in your edit summary. It's black and white. If the only thing Butcher did was get convicted, no one would have ever heard of Butcher. David in DC (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to yourself. By that ridiculous rationale, Al Capone would not be considered an American criminal, as he is also notable for his philanthropy. The point is not that Butcher would not be notable if all he did was get convicted, the point is that he would not be if he hadn't been convicted, as he would not have had his critically acclaimed jailbird poetry published by CrimethInc.. You will notice that he is also (justifiably) in Category:American film directors, although his films are not independently notable. Is he solely notable for having been born in 1969? I could go on. There is no question that Butcher is an American criminal, and no WP:BLP concerns in identifying him as such. Your argument by the rules has little rhetorical weight, considering the category itself is up for deletion. Sincerely, Skomorokh 01:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Category definition, with the applicable language bolded:

"Have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted of a felony by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or

Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed."

None of the other categories you cite have similar language. If you don't like the definition of the category, you know how to get it changed. But until the category is changed or deleted (and it's probably not going to be deleted, judging from the discussion at the deletion nomination), you ought to follow the definition that the rest of the community is bound by. WP:IAR is not a license to do anything you darn well please. The proper place to argue to change the definition is on the category's talk page, not by just unilaterally ignoring it. David in DC (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Hi. I assume your edit summary to CrimethInc was in Irish, since what you did was adding a link to ga:, but since I don't speak Irish it didn't make much sense to me on the page history. Could I suggest you write "ga:" or something instead for the benefit of those unfortunate enough not to speak the language? The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't translate as my native language is of dissimilar descendance to Irish/Gaelic; I had an associate compose something fitting. The edit in question was trivial, an interwiki link, and the article is obscure and infrequently read. I don't intend on contributing to Wikimedia in any language other than English for privacy concerns, but if I am adding interwiki links again I'll try to be more considerate in my edit summaries. Sincerely, Skomorokh 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Scarcity Anarchism

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Post-Scarcity Anarchism, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, and you can completely write me off

My guess is, ani happens to be where arbcom goes to notify the community when actions are questioned, and is apparently the preferred venue. Although I like the idea of them making these types of blocks known to the community, I think its unlikely that there will be a separate noticeboard for these situations. Primarily because there aren't enough to merit one. It just so happened that there were editors asking questions, and they needed to quickly make a statement in order to avoid more drama or conflict. Other than that, I noticed you aren't an admin. Are you looking to become one? — _Maggot^Syn 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with your assessment that ANI is the preferred venue for this type of thing, and I am sure FT2 was not acting out of order. It seems to be the case that most editors interested in this kind of thing are administrators (or prospective/rejected administrators) and this is thus a natural conflation. I just wish we could decouple important discussions from administrative noticeboards where possible (and this is such a case), to encourage a less hierarchical encyclopedia, per WP:DEAL. I do not completely write you off, nor am I looking to be an administrator. Regards, Skomorokh 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats too bad. Happy editing from — _Maggot^Syn 21:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing your opinion. I'll think about it more. Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A guy from NET is harassing me

This guy Network of European Technocrats - Jure Sah . He is this guy here User talk:89.212.75.6 . DustWolf He showed up out of the blue and put a spam sticker on the Technocracy movement article and also my user page... I feel like he is stalking me or harassing me. Could you look into this? Maybe ask him to leave me alone ? I explained to him that it was not me that put the NET site up for deletion. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spam tag on your userpage was out of line and I have removed it. If the user is causing you stress and you cannot reason with them, you might want to request a third opinion or ask at the administrator's noticeboard as I prefer not to get involved in personal disputes. Regards, Skomorokh 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. I hope this takes care of it. If he reads your edit, I would think then that it should stop. Regards. skip sievert (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ludwigs2

Maggie -

So that their comment does not get lost, I left a note for Ludwigs2 saying they'd misplaced a talk page message.

brenneman 04:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I...wonder if you are in right place...there are no Maggies or Ludwigs to be found here (!?) Skomorokh 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed User:Ludwigs2's comment with the edit summary "ceci n'est pas une talkpage," a reference to The Treachery of Images by Magritte. As you had not moved it to the appropiate talk page, I left a note for him. I am sometimes oblique to the point of obfuscation, but when someone leaves a comment it's best not to remove it without a trace, that's all. - brenneman 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French. Sincerely, Skomorokh 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]