User talk:Skomorokh/Բ

Keep up the Good work

		The Original Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Skomorokh for outstanding contributions to the Good Articles process, especially reviews and reassessments.--ragesoss (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you very much, and may I wish you luck on your tenure at the Post and thank you for your insightful contributions to the Weekly. Regards, Skomorokh 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

King Kong Defense

Sure, I help, I incorporated the references into the article. May need some more work as I am not the best of editors but I think I did a pretty good job. The other user on the discussion page mention my incorporation to be a copyright violation. Don't really understand how it could be a copyright violation though as it is a factual happening and what can one do other than report it as it is and what the source says. Besides, I am an agorist, I do not acknowledge the artificial monopoly known colloquially known as intellectual property :) Lord Metroid (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Thanks for the help with the sources, it looks a lot more salvagable now. Solidarity, Skomorokh 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tag

Fair enough re: ARS tag, though just to be clear I removed it not because it's a no-hoper, but because there's precious little need of a rescue. Thanks for your help in bringing that state about.

That's a nice black bar atop the edit window, too. It's amazing what they do with HTML/CSS/whatever these days. --Kizor 19:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The AfD failed more out of the headcount of opposition than the verifiability of the topic; I was hoping if the GNG was met a Rescuer could update the article accordingly. No worries on the difference of opinion. The black bar is a relatively new addition; such editnotices can get quite elaborate. Cheers, Skomorokh 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Incorrectly tagged Anarchism task force articles

What is Category:Incorrectly tagged Anarchism task force articles used for? --Pascal666 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumably for when the argument for the "anarchism" parameter in {{philosophy}} is "yes" and where some unacceptable argument is entered in another field. You might wish to ask the Pontiff for more details. Regards, Skomorokh 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Illustration for Meinong's jungle

Re illustration for Meinong's jungle:
Just to toss out a possibility --
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hieronymus_Bosch_-_The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_-_Hell.jpg
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely the sort of thing I had in mind, though the Bosch work is not a favourite of mine and might not convey the idea at a thumbnail resolution. Thanks for the suggestion! Skomorokh 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, larger version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Hieronymus_Bosch_-_The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_-_Hell.jpg -- don't know if this is too "thumbnail". -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, check it out to the right at 250x250 pixels (default). It may be too scaled for the casual reader to make out any of the details. Skomorokh 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You Being an Objectivist

No prob, I'll refactor it shortly. Just to clarify, I have absolutely no problem with you editing the article, it was the behavior of the editor who sent you that message. Idag (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's cool, I get it. Appreciate the gesture, Skomorokh 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done =) Idag (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Teodorovich

User:Ikip has repented of his attack on the nominator during this AfD and has edited the closed AfD discussion to remove it. That leaves my response looking a bit silly; I could in turn remove that, but I don't think closed AfD discussions should be rewritten with hindsight in this way. May I ask you, as the closing admin, to restore it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. On the one hand, I welcome Ikip's retraction of the "attack", but on the other hand closed discussions ought not the be edited. I've raised the issue at the administrator's incidents noticeboard to see what wiser heads have to say about the matter. Skomorokh 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pass the sodium chloride

{{admin!}} The article Alex latham purports to be a biography of a football superstar, who does not seem to have made a dent in Google. The properly capitalised version Alex Latham has been protected against recreation, and I ask that this article be deleted as a hoax and salted also. Thank you for your time, Skomorokh 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rasputin lol

Здравствуйте и Спасибо Rasputin! lol - thanks for your edits, still trying to grasp the basics of footnotes and accurate ref protocols.Ernstblumberg (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help! Feel free to ask if there's anything you're curious about. Skomorokh 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

History restoration

{{admin!}} The Book of Eli has been moved to the mainspace from a userfied version of a deleted article. Could you please find and restore the history? It may be in either Book of Eli or The Book of Eli. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, was at The Book of Eli (the other just had a deleted redirect created by you). Regards SoWhy 17:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SoWhy, I appreciate it. Skomorokh 17:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Thanks for helping out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

After seeing you going alone on the Alexander Berkman article, and after finding The Bolshevik Myth to be one of the few anarchism-related articles worth showcasing on Portal:Anarchism, it's the least I could do. Let me know if you need a hand with anything. Sincerely, Skomorokh 00:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Percept Article

Dear Skomorokh,

If you wish to help us with Percept article, please visit the related discussion page and suggest changes there. Thanks.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have anything to contribute to the article, though I wish you well with it. Good luck, Skomorokh 00:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gail Trimble

Thanks for the advice and support re the article - this is just to let you know that I'll be pretty much offline over this weekend, so if there's anything you can do in the meantime I'd appreciate it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a pity; I hope I will have time to do the topic justice. Nominations like this are really quite demoralising. Solidarity, Skomorokh 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll check in when I can - but I have IRL duties! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - it's up for DYK as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome!

Hazelrenfield (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining! Skomorokh 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

William Gibson / Ryman topics & lists

Hey, i noticed you did most of the work getting the William Gibson and List of works articles up to featured status. I'm trying to make a featured topic out of Geoff Ryman, with his list of works and list of awards. I was wondering if you were interested in collaborating in doing something similar with Gibson. I want to set a precedent for this sort of topic, and lists of awards are easy to source for science fiction authors. I think this would be best if the list of works includes more ifo about each major work though, so not including the works themselves in the topic is more reasonable. Does this sound like a good idea to you? I was thinking something like the format i starting at the Geoff Ryman bibliography, but the table is not important to me, as long as the info is included (a short plot synopsis, and info that would go in a typical novel stub infobox, so is just a copy paste job).

If you want to work together, we could co-nominate all the lists and topic for featuring, so that all the formatting and content is set for these types of lists (I like having the little stars, but have no ownership issues and don't participate in any of the competitions or the wikicup).YobMod 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! Yes, I would be most interested in collaborating on a featured topic for Gibson, and I agree that setting a sound precedent is an idea worth pursuing. I have written neither an awards list nor a featured topic before, so I am not familiar with the requirements (for reliable sources in the former instance and comprehensiveness in the latter). I wrote Works of William Gibson as a straightforward list, as summarizing each work would have made the page prohibitively long – not sure what the precedent in such a situation ought to be. I took a look at Geoff Ryman bibliography and List of awards and nominations received by Geoff Ryman; though the formatting is inconsistent and could use a dose of WP:MoS, there are some interesting approaches. A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Skomorokh 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I made a subpage at the William Gibson talk page to get the list up to a good enough standard for mainspace. I added the infobox and sections, and copied all the data from the Locus index. Now it all needs sorting into the correct sections (I'm following formatting of the musicians FLs, with each award getting its own section with a short intro, followed by the tables, hence the list in date format has to be split into award type.) The Ryman inconstinstances are hopefully temporary - i created the lists only a few days ago, and have done lots of playinyg around with wikitables :-).YobMod 16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo, I moved the sandbox to userspace so that we could keep discussion separate from the list (there is no Talk talk namespace!); the basic structure (list by individual awards in separate sections) looks good. I'm going to tinker around a little with the templates, see you at the discussion page :) Ciao, Skomorokh 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A message to Skomorokh

The AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. I hope that ochlarchists like Zazaban and Skomorokh can be more matter of fact this time! The AI is certainly not a "hoax/spam/non-notable; worth keeping an eye on for quality control", see my arguments below. AI/IAF/AFI is significantly the largest anarchist organization in the world. This is based on reliable, independent third party sources, and I hope thus that my scientifical contributions will not be deleted.

If adding true and easily verifiable information to the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page, that is clearly misleading and biased, is vandalism, you have a wrong interpretation of the concept vandalism. My additions isare100% according to the Wikipedia principle of verification. If I am blocked it is real vandalism. You are a vandal asking for blocking me, for adding true and easily verifiable information to the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.78.10 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

{{admin!}} Could you please delete User:Anna Quist/Sandbox per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International? Grazi, Skomorokh 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as G7, since the author blanked the page themselves. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks J. Skomorokh 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm not sure why I responded to Dragonfly's question and made an edit at Narg without either checking the history or scrolling down farther to see if anyone else had replied, except that I was sick today (having some withdrawal reactions to an antihistamine that I didn't suspect until I read the Wikipedia article ... even my doctor didn't know). You probably didn't consider it a big deal, but I'm usually careful not to make an edit that might come across as overruling another admin without checking with the admin first. I'm feeling better now. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't too sure how to treat such an article anyway, but it seemed to me to be up to the fine folks at Wiktionary to decide whether or not it was worthy of inclusion rather than us. I don't imagine admin Black Kite will be to put out about it. I'm sorry to hear about your illness, and glad that you're doing better. Shalom, Skomorokh 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the gibbering idiots at DRV are worth appealing to, to be honest. Skomorokh 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoop

Don't bother. Take my word on this. Sesshomaru has some serious OCD going on and has camped the "shoop" disambiguation page for ages. He considers removing "shoop" as slang for "photoshopped" to be his holy crusade, and will revert however many times it takes. Just don't even bother. It's a headache you don't need. -- SmashTheState (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, hadn't intended to lose any sleep over it! Cheers for the concern, Skomorokh 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Kelly (anarchist)

On March 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Kelly (anarchist), 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Danke, I was starting to feel guilty without one of these boxes on User talk:Skomorokh. Skomorokh 04:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Patrol?

Really? I wasn't doing that? Oh ok. Sorry. I have done it in the past. Thanks for letting me know. Isn't this stuff built into twinkle?--Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I happened across a few that you'd speedied without patrolling; I don't think Twinkle does it automatically, no. Regards, Skomorokh 05:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Labor / Worker's Rights project

I recently drafted a proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Move of Zizek list

I notice you moved List of books, films and articles by Slavoj Žižek to Works of Slavoj Žižek. Had there been any discussion of this that I missed, or was this simply you being WP:BOLD.

I don't have any strong objection to the move, but am mildly concerned that the word "List" was dropped from the title. I.e. List of works by Slavoj Žižek would probably be the title I'd most prefer. I won't make any change until I hear from you though. LotLE×talk 08:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold, considering the "list of" formulation to be redundant and self-referential. To get an idea of the diversity among naming conventions in this area, see Category:Bibliographies by author. Regards, Skomorokh 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK. It looks to me like my formulation is a bit more common that yours, but both (and others as well) certainly occur with a good frequency. I've settled for a redirect from the version that seems most intuitive to me, but have left your name intact. LotLE×talk 08:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sure some zealot will come along and standardise them all one way or another in a year or two in any case. Cheers, Skomorokh 08:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior-Protecting America's Abused Children

We have communicated before, perhaps you can help. I have been trying to comply with 'Nomoskedasticity' who swooped in to attack the article and appears to resist any efforts to comply. Maybe you can help. Please see copy of today's comments

'This article was started with the name of an organization, "Protecting America's Abused Children". The creator has moved it, but it is still mainly about the organization, which is doing a research project that now forms the title of the article. Either way, there is a complete lack of notability here. Article creator has removed the prod but has not responded directly to the request to produce references to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

After a review of the article and your concerns, I believe if you work with me, we can preserve the integrity of the research relating to the economics of indigent culture and behavior and Protecting America's Abused Children's role..referencing other university studies that touch on the subject and inviting contributors to add to the article. Would this be possible?--Nvkorruption (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Substantial edits have already been made. Please advise.--Nvkorruption (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:N carefully. Without references to reliable sources, there is no basis for an article. The move does not change the situation in these terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I have read the information thoroughly. All references and links come from reliable sources. Unfortunately, I havent figured out how to do the (references) which I am working on to complete. You have been so hard core with your threats that much of my time has been trying to comply in response as anyone can see is a good faith effort which you appear to be unable to appreciate in your demonstration of 'authority' which is unlike others in your position who at least try to work with instead of against any effort to comply.

If you will allow for enough time, I will put the references in for the reliable sources (the links are already in the article with more to be added with additional contribution) and rename the article leaving protecting america's abused children out.

( By the way, I have had to take time to investigate other articles within Wikipedia which fall below the standards you are insisting on in this article)

If you are not willing to permit any reasonable solution which appears to be against the spirit of Wikipedia, please advise so that the matter can be appealed to a higher authority within your organization as this matter should be further investigated.--Nvkorruption (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)--Nvkorruption (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Nvkorruption. As I told you in January, unless you provide evidence of significant third-party coverage of PAAC in reliable sources, the article should and will be deleted. I sympathise with your lack of time to provide such evidence, but this was why I moved the original article out of the encyclopaedia to your userspace at User:Nvkorruption/Protecting America's Abused Children; you are free to edit that article to your hearts content without fear of deletion for a few months. But articles in the encyclopaedia itself must meet the standards for inclusion (WP:N) immediately or face deletion. It does not help matters to move the article to Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior-Protecting America's Abused Children; a field of economics and a non-profit organization may be related topics but they will never be one and the same topic, and mixing them together only hastens the deletion. There may very well be an appropriate topic in the "economics of indigence culture and behaviour", but only as a standalone article, and only if there is evidence of academic or journalistic scholarship on it.

In conclusion, none of the content you have posted to the encyclopaedia satisfies the inclusion criteria at this time. If you would like to write about these topics in the encyclopaedia, you need to find the reliable sources first, then draw from them for the content of the articles. Otherwise, your work will undoubtedly be deleted and your time here wasted. Commiserations, and regards, Skomorokh 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am willing to use only "economics of indigence culture and behaviour", obviously, there is more work to be done, but the resources I am drawing from are reliable. Can reference be made to what PAAC is doing in relation to the topic and sources? Regards --Nvkorruption (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot overrule policy

You're inserting whole swarths of uncited material. You tell me to seek consensus first to take it back out. No one needs consensus to deleted uncited material. We're supposed to delete uncited material. Plan your rocks (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chill. You completely transformed a long-standing article without discussing first. The world will not end if we mull over the options for dealing with the article. Being uncited does not necessarily mean content is of no value; some can be easily sourced. Case in point. Skomorokh 18:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You chill. Uncited material has been in that ariticle for a long time, months and years. The longer uncited material remains in an article, the more urgent it is that it be deleted. The issue is not whether or something has "value," because value is subjective, but whether it's cited. Plan your rocks (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimbo Wales Plan your rocks (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

anarchism and capitalism

I admit I was a bit hasty, I apologize for that. However, a large portion of the article is just a rehash of several other pages listed in the critiques of capitalism, critiques of anarcho-capitalism, and a slew of other pages. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, which is why it needs careful consideration from interested and knowledgeable editors on where to merge the content to, not a host of one-liner votes from a host of uninformed children who won't even bother to read the whole article. Skomorokh 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I resent the implication, but will bow to the wisdom of the statement. I will withdraw the AfD. Soxwon (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the likely panel of voters. Thanks for your consideration, and I'll see you at the talkpage. Sincerely, Skomorokh 22:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)