User talk:Skomorokh/छ

Malcolm X
I was about to fix the error I made when I was trying to remove the really poor category. Apparently my friend had done so at about the same time and when I highlighted the undo data in the edit summary window, my mouse slipped and it drop and dragged it before I realized it had happened. And then you were undoing what I had done while I was trying to fix that. It was an accident, I assure you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, I surmised as much. Mahalo, Skomorokh  10:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
It is my understanding that blogs aren't considered reliable sources. At least this is what I remember the last time I read WP:RS; I can't seem to find a mention on the page right now. I accept that I could be wrong, but next time, try to correct people in a more civil manner. Thanks. -- vi5in [talk] 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello to you. You removed the work of others using a justification that misrepresented Wikipedia policy; this not only makes Wikipedia a poorer informational resource, it also discourages and drives away the contributors of the content. Editors are here to construct an encyclopaedia, not to make friends. The policies on self-published sources are not overly-difficult to understand. Sincerely, Skomorokh  20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in your zeal to understand the extremely easy concepts on WP:RS you failed to be similarly zealous in reading WP:BOLD and WP:AGF. Wikipedia in addition to being an encyclopedia is also about building a community, and that involves making friends. I can see that this discussion won't go anywhere, so have a great time on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- vi5in [talk] 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never assumed anything other than good faith, and boldness is only a virtue if it is informed. I heartily disagree that Wikipedia is about "building a community" or having "a great time". In any case, how much of a great time do you think the editors who tried to build the Marmaduke article would have once they see their work destroyed; how much of a "community" does that build, would you say? Your actions have consequences beyond the social club. There are plenty of ways of addressing content you dislike or think inappropriate without disrupting articles; fv, vc, talkpage discussions, hidden comments and asking the editor who added the information are only some of the ways you could have done so in this instance. Arrivederci, Skomorokh  21:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Syndicalists and the IWAs
The source cited is actually referring to the anarcho-syndicalist IWA formed in 1922, not to the First International. Abstentionism was certainly Proudhon's position in such late works as "The Sworn Democrats and the Refractories" and "Political Capacity of the Working Class." I would have to dig to verify the position of the Proudhonists in the original IWA. Libertatia (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Political machine
Regarding this edit, I think the volume had its own title - thats why I included the "Crisis of Democracy" bit. Avruch  T 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, but cite journal does not support individual issue titles. Skomorokh  22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Austrian School
Reading over our exchange at Austrian School, it seems petty and nonconstructive. I suggest deleting the entire exchange. We can agree to disagree politely about how relevant 'Austrians' are to modern economics. LK (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, gladly. Hope to collaborate with you in improving economics articles in the future. Regards, Skomorokh  03:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ratings at Lab rat
you cited refs and MOS violations for rating it C-class. while i have my own reasons why i think it's still c-class, it would be helpful if you'd do me the favor of elaborating. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleased to make your acquaintance. No it was not violations of referencing or MoS, but compliance! You see, the Start-Class criteria read "The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted." I felt the lab rat article didn't have these problems, while it did lack the comprehensiveness that a B-class assignation would require (no dedicated multi-paragraph sections on the types of research lab rats are used in, or the ethical issues surrounding pertaining to same). I hope this helps, and I'll try to elaborate further if you think it necessary. Regards, Skomorokh  07:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

je vois! and i agree, my "own reasons" mentioned above do indeed include comprehensiveness. The article is the result of a mega merge done a while ago, and i've slowly been trying to straighten it out, along with getting Fancy rat through GA, and tweaking other related articles. Cheerio! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! I followed the link from fancy rat, which struck me as a curious name to see at GAN. Best of luck in all your rodent endeavours, Skomorokh  08:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Valdalism at libertatian
Before deleting an external link under the pretext you are "not sure if the organisations belong there" I suggest You first verify. The link is most appropriate under external links.
 * We don't allow promotional links in Wikipedia articles; please read our policy on external links. I'm afraid I don't see how the link to http://www.freedom-network-audio-portal.tk/ fulfills any of the criteria. Your attempt at including it at Podcast even though it is not a resource on podcasting was reverted by another user. The short version: it's difficult to get away with spamming Wikipedia. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel
Thanks for your interest in the Heidegger article. You may notice that the photos in the Heidegger article currently consist mostly of houses where Heidegger once lived or a path that Heidegger once walked on.

I found a good copy of a photo at http://jacketmagazine.com/32/index.shtml which at some point I would like to add. It shows Heidegger at a Nazi forum. The editor who deletes my additions will possibly start a revert war if the Heidegger article includes this photo, so I was wondering if as you address the Heidegger issues you could also address the acceptability of including a photo of Heidegger at a Nazi event.Jonathansamuel (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about URL addition to a Wiki Page:
I have a question about Free Speech Zones. A user, IP address: 68.195.189.251, has been adding a link to a blog that does not seem to meet WP:NOTE standards. I undid the link the user put back a second time and just noticed you undid text about the same blog on an earlier edit. Is this something someone a more experienced user like you could handle if it's put back? I'm relatively new here. Thanks. Wikyedit (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikyedit. Links do not need to meet WP:NOTE standards; only topics that have articles do. Links need to meet the External links guideline, or, if they are being used as references, the Reliable sources guideline. If the editor persists, you might want to add uw-spam1 to their talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh  18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wikyedit (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: CSD
As it was, the lacked reliable sources (or any sources, for that matter) to back up statements such as "Zef Shoshi is one of the greatest Albanian painters." As such, there is no way to determine if he was indeed deemed one of the greatest Albanian painters by reliable sources, or if it was somebody's personal opinion. Without reliable sources to back up assertions of notability, the article fails WP:N. Regarding the individual article in question, I would have to further investigate, but I would have likely nominated it at AfD. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable course of action; I think there is a very large difference between CSD-worthy and AfD-worthy. Regards, Skomorokh  18:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:RfA
The link you provided at WT:RfA doesn't work.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me; it allows anyone to see a portion of any user's deleted contributions. Regards, Skomorokh  19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BSCOUT13
Good catch. 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, anonymous timestamp. Skomorokh  23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RE
my apologies. Since the user seemed to be unfamiliar with the process of filling out an RFA, I assumed that he meant to accept. Once again, I apologize, and you may certainly revert my edit. Sam Blab 00:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries; RfAs can be bruising experiences, especially when the candidate is unprepared (as you're probably aware), so it's best to take extra caution. Regards, Skomorokh  00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Karl Hess
I think this is pretty darn funny. I am really uncertain how to respond! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PLEASE YIELD TO MY JUDGEMENT. Sounds like bad slash s&m porn. You should do what the man says, he sounds like he means business! Skomorokh  03:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know! Yield to my judgement.  There is no equivocation in such a statement.  But, alas, his judgment, in this case, at least, is flawed. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer images external linking
You have a message on Talk:IWF block of Wikipedia. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have it watchisted, thanks. Skomorokh  03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your undoing of my edits in Libertarianism
Hi. I posed the question in Talk:Libertarianismand figured you ought to know. (nice page this is) Cheers, Yartett (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for notifying me; I have responded there. Regards, Skomorokh  01:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Sarsaparilla is back, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Who; this guy? Skomorokh  01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For a reminder see the second discussion - including on Lib wikipedia - at Talk:Nathan_Larson_(politician). Remember Ron Paul Ron Paul?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but the Ron Paul and Lighning Thundercat accounts are blocked; what is his current username? Skomorokh  03:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't make it clear I was talking about User:Yartett above who is editing Libertarianism with two links you deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Have you gotten the hang of tagging and bagging socks yet? :) Skomorokh  04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just started putting {sockpuppet|Sarsaparilla} tags on and at least he didn't delete them. I think he gives up easy now so don't want to overdo it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI Yartett just denied he's Sarsaparilla with some complicated explanation including coincidence he's promoting S's new stalking grounds, libertarianwiki. I don't know what happens when you leave those tags up. I'm not sufficiently convinced to take it down. The bad effects of danged socks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No Tools?
I thought you were an admin to be honest. Why not? Pedro : Chat  22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No offence, but why would anyone want to be one? Skomorokh  22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good answer...! Only, for example, in that recent ANI thread where you could have saved yourself the time in posting and simply blocked and deleted yourself. But for that small benefit, I have to agree there's not a lot else that's positive about it. Pedro : Chat  22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, and those inconveniences only come up a few times a month. Thanks for the kind comment though. Regards, Skomorokh  22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy editing then my friend. If you ever need someone to unblock the sink, or sweep the floor, tap me up. Meanwhile, you keep on with the seriously outstanding article work. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat  22:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'll keep that in mind. Now you've succeeded in guilt tripping me into doing some decent article writing after the distraction of hanging out at ACE and RfA. Ciao, Skomorokh  18:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanted to ask if you would like to offer your opinion over at Talk:Situationist_International. I feel like I'm being treated like I'm an ignorant newbie, very irritating. Zazaban (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yo, not particularly interested in getting engaged there, but Jacobite knows his stuff and the content dispute is easily resolved by a Google Books search for sources. The best way to avoid being treated like a n00b is to master the content. Ciao, Skomorokh  18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agrippa news
Slashdot | William Gibson's AGRIPPA Recovered and Revealed :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Juicy! Reminds me of how far our article is from encompassing the whole deal on Agrippa. Obrigado, Skomorokh  01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Frédéric Bastiat economics importance
Hello--The "low" rating for the economics project isn't intended as a disparagement of Bastiat. In a discussion about ranking biographies within the economics project, mostly we decided that bios should be "low" importance. I argue for exceptions for Nobel winners and for a couple others. I think we've wound up with most Nobel winners being ranked high, but others ranked low. (discussion here) C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I mean the nonexistent "low" ranking which I assumed was there, but actually wasn't... C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw it unassessed so I gave an off the cuff rating; I'm not a member of the project so feel free to override the assessment with whatever you wish. Thanks for the thoughtful message. Regards, Skomorokh  17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, and done. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering...
..How are you doing with the citation fishing? Just curious how far along you are. Zazaban (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yo, I'm re-reading Der Einzige at the moment; preliminary conclusions is that our article is mostly nonsense in this regard. Skomorokh  01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ty
Hey, thanks for the tip about disambiguation pages.

Sorry for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in the midst of a content dispute :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice
-

Not a good joke
Please don't. -- lucasbfr  talk 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Can you write in complete sentences please, I do not understand why you have apparently deleted a functioning shortcut (again without edit summary). Skomorokh  23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger
Skomorokh, I noticed that you said that you are looking for another Wikipedia official to address the Heidegger article, because you do not have the time. Should I assume that you have withdrawn from this matter due to lack of time? Jonathansamuel (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Jonathan. There are no such thing as Wikipedia "officials" - we are all editors and problems such as those regarding the Heidegger article are resolved through dispute resolution. You are correct that I don't have the time to devote to the Heidegger article at present. Regards, Skomorokh  02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that you had some status at Wikipedia which enabled you to freeze the Heidegger page, and that someone had asked you to get involved. Was I wrong on both counts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansamuel (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes; I asked that the page be temporarily protected to stop the edit war. Regards, Skomorokh  04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

BD vs YOB and YOD categories
Please take not that there is no consensus in replacing DEFAULTSORT with BD as you did here. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when does one need to check for consensus before using a template for its intended purpose? Frankly, I see no point in your message; could you explain what you hoped to achieve by it? Skomorokh  01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
So about bibliografical resources in anarchism, I believe that spunk have the same content that theyliewedie, but this one is bigger and updated. So if it's is about reliable sources I belive the two first (Daily Bleed and Anarchy Archives) are better and very known. I'm also thinking about the archive of Molinari Institute about anarchism (because the other ones are very socialist oriented). I want your opinion. Have a good day ;) --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yo Nihilo, thanks for taking an interest in the issue! I don't have a chance to look at this now but I hope to sometime within the week - in the meantime just go ahead with whatever you think is best. Ciao, Skomorokh  01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Skomorokh: Thanks for the GA review. It's exactly what I was looking for. I'm letting a lot of your comments sink in, and I'll definitely be going back to some of the articles to see if I can provide further analysis rather than simply quoting. It's a lot of work you've done and I appreciate it. No rush given I still have to tackle what you've provided so far.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent :) See you at GA1 soon, Skomorokh  02:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)