User talk:Skomorokh/捌

Pragmatism
If you look at the article, most of it is cited in Harvard-style citations. That template appears to me to be an outright mistake. If there are section-specific needs for citations, as appears to be the case with several recently introduced sections, then please by all means put a template on appropriate sections. I hadn't known WP:MOS had been changed to require footnotes. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Harvard referencing is of course perfectly fine, as long as it is done right. The proper way of inline citation using Harvard style is Harvard citation and its derivatives. The reader needs to be able to click on the inline citation and have access to the full reference, without having to go searching for it in the long list below. If you like, you can move the nofootnotes from the top of the article to the References section, but the footnoting is unacceptable as things stand. Hope this helps your understanding, and best of luck with developing the article. Sincerely, Skomorokh  21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been had
You seem to have reverted the removal of conspicuous nonsense. See, ,   and the talk page of that article. You're not the only one. Fortunately, Geni fixed it. DGG (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the remover of apparently cited content to justify their action in edit summary; the sources cited are quite reliable. Do you have a link to the mailing list you mentioned on the talkpage? Skomorokh  01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The website is http://www.barryhand.ie/wikipedia-gaff-finds-its-way-into-book/. The email is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094970.html and other messages in that thread. DGG (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gracias. Skomorokh  17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

brainfart
I'm honored! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * De nada. Now I just have to figure out where WP:BRAINFART should redirect to... Skomorokh  03:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, question
Not to be rude, but why was a tag placed on my meerkat page: Meerkats- A untold tragety??? Mango Loves Yousseh (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not at all rude, just inattentive perhaps. Like I said in my comment, yours was "a very short article providing little or no context to the reader", which means it qualifies for speedy deletion. Regards, Skomorokh  04:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Smash the state
I love that expression, "Smash the state." I saw ( http://www. cafepress.com/doubleplusungov.78641658 ) this t-shirt and was going to buy it before I thought to myself, do those "labor" and "management" indicators carry some sort of socialist/left-anarchist/etc. message I don't want to be associated with? Hmm. Do you have any insight into that? Also, the url got caught in the spam filter, which is why I inserted a space after the www. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally here to improve articles, not wardrobes; I have no insight into the motivations of t-shirt manufacturers I'm afraid. Skomorokh  04:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it a try, if you like
You're welcome to proceed, if you want. I'll try to put something updated on one of the sites, and send you a link. There's always sv:Shawn P. Wilbur to flesh out, if you brush up your Swedish. ;) As far as helping out goes, I think the archiving and translation projects are going to be as useful as anything for awhile. BTW, I do check Wikipedia every couple of days and have, as you know, got into a few things recently. I'm just not fighting unwinnable wars over the Proudhon page, for instance, when Wikipedia is so tolerant of published hearsay. Libertatia (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I appreciate it. My Swedish is quite decent (I can almost hear them from here) and I managed to translate the article without difficulty; I'll get the en version started once the biographical blurb is available. I understand that Wikipedia must be frustrating to deal with as a scholar, but I hope you'll continue contributing every now and then. Regards, Skomorokh  05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I think I managed to translate the article without difficulty--and without any Swedish. I've always had better reception of my work, on anarchism or the earlier stuff on virtual community, in Scandinavia for some reason. Anyway, you might note that libertarian-labyrinth.org is already cited as a source for a number of things, that I'm listed among the contributors on An Anarchist FAQ and that one of my papers is linked on the Art Strike page. I'm a past collective member of Spunk Library as well. (I'm getting messages on Wikisource right now as well, so things are hopping. I'll keep you posted.) Libertatia (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I hadn't come across the art strike essay before, interesting. Skomorokh  05:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Updated CV. Libertatia (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a wiki-based collaborative translation project is about to be launched, focusing on anarchist and related material, starting with Proudhon, and in some sort of connection with Wikisource. We should be able to coordinate a bit between the work here and there. There are some good academics involved, along with credentialed lone wolves like myself. Libertatia (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great; hope the licenses and so on are compatible. It would be great to get definitive translations; I've lost track of the number of times I've had to pick external links for anarchism books based on the relative prettiness of the pages' HTML. The skeleton of your bio is almost done, by the way (citation concerns aside). Do you have a username on Wikisource? A date of birth and a flattering free image would also be nice. Drop me a link to the project once it gets off the ground. Skomorokh  00:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DOB: 3/9/63. I'll work on the image. Libertatia (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Same page for image. My photo, with my permission to use it. Libertatia (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shawn P. Wilbur. Sorry I don't have time to write a proper article at present, but it should keep the wolves from the door. Any problems or inaccuracies, let me know on the article talkpage (WP:COI and all that). Mahalo, Skomorokh  01:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very nice. Weird for me, given my relationship to the site, but... Libertatia (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

dates
The discussion that led to the consensus for change at MOSNUM, at MOSLINK and at CONTEXT? I suppose I can dig up a number of links if you want, but it's been evolving over more than a year and is spread over so many pages. Is that as I understand your request? Tony  (talk)  13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I thought starting a centralized discussion would be best. Perhaps the "Wikilinked dates" section at WT:MOSLINK and a link from Cent? This is a non-trivial change which will effect nearly every page on the encyclopaedia, so it's important to get wide community involvement to flesh out the details. Regards, Skomorokh  13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would involve every page in the project if it was mandatory not to use autoformatting, but it's not: the choice has been given to editors of articles. This is why the most appropriate way to gather data is from article talk pages, where this choice resides. The centralised discussion about optionalisation has occurred in fits and starts at MOSNUM talk for more than a year. Tony   (talk)  17:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco
Hi, I think Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign and Hitler is good in two separate sections because Hitler's attitude existed was not only before Nazis implemented first anti-tobacco measures, but also during ww2. His famous quote tobacco killed so many young people dates 1942. I have created the Prelude to Nazi anti-tobacco campaign section mainly to include anti-tobacco measures by non-Nazi Germans before 1930s, thus it is actually a brief pre-Nazi history. Thoughts? Cheers.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All well and good, but you have a dilemma: right-facing images must face right, and images that break two-level headings are ugly. Regards, Skomorokh  04:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I properly did not understand right-facing images must face right regarding the Hitler image. Could you please elaborate. Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. MOS:IMAGES should explain it sufficiently; it's a brief read. Feel free to revert any of my changes to the article, I was just passing through. Regards, Skomorokh  04:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that the image breaks two-level headings, and it looks bad. To fix this problem I have shortened the caption.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments regarding The Oatcake...
are extremely impressive. Good job! I am enjoying our discussion, and I hope that I am not causing you stress because of my advocacy for the article's erasure. {{subst:Smile}} Ecoleetage (talk)
 * Thanks, the sentiment is mutual. There are far, far, far worse advocates for electronic book-burning than yourself, rest assured! Regards, Skomorokh  15:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and....
Thanks for your support on the QotSA discography. Question her can you take a look for speeling mistakes at the page cause this user The Ramblin Man has the power to delist nomination if he means it doesn't meat the FL criteria and he is threatning me. So can you take a look please. I would really appreciate it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave the lede a copyedit, it should be fine now. Skomorokh  15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Userification
I will userify to User:Skomorokh/JA but I am going to remove some bits. I will leave all the references, however, which I hope will be sufficient. CIreland (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. When you are finished, could you drop me a note so I can move it back to article space and undelete the previous history for GFDL purposes. CIreland (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I move it there is one point I would like addressed. The opening line describes him as a criminal. I am not certain he has broken criminal law in the UK and I couldn't find the word criminal used in any of the sources. I think that this needs a citation or needs to be changed. CIreland (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to FSA regulations, no; I've changed it to "businessman". Thanks, Skomorokh  19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to article space. Thanks for your hard work. CIreland (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Skomorokh  16:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Offer
First, thanks for your offer, perhaps you can check over BBHS's other FLCs as and when they arrive. Secondly, I think your copyedit to QOTSA discog was good and once I get a moment away from real life (stress is around 9.9 out of ten right now) I'll check over the list for promotion. If I don't then I would expect Scorpion to promote it in maybe six hours or so as he's been uninvolved with the list and now it has a couple of supports, it'll probably go through. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll try and assist with the BBHS lists in my sphere of competence. No rush checking the list; there is no deadline, and no problem with chilling out and logging out when you feel like it. Take care, Skomorokh  16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I appreciate the deadline thing, but when I first took the helm as director at FLC, we had an enormous backlog which really put reviewers off. Also a large number of lists were being nominated with dozens of basic errors which should have been picked up at WP:PR before hand.  It's especially the case when non-native-English speakers submit lists.  Anyway, I appreciate your offer of help.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, glad to be of assistance. Skomorokh  16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AFAQ
You haven't replied to my post on AC talk page, and I would be glad if we could settle this issue once and for all. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not hugely concerned about/haven't got time to care about what goes in and out of the A-C ref section; but I do intend on settling all these anarchism sourcing issues definitively at WT:ANCITE. So you can go ahead and ignore my opinion at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism, but it's going to come up again unless we establish a clear guideline at WP:ANCITE. Regards, Skomorokh  19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ack!! Sorry!!
Sorry about this! 

It was a complete accident. Sometimes, when I make edits, I'll write them out in notepad and them paste them into Firefox. It helps, because sometimes Firefox crashes and everything is lost. I guess I must've accidentally pasted over your remarks -- not sure how, though. Strange.

Anyway, sorry! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kein Problem. Ciao, Skomorokh  01:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Redacted?
Yep, I think that was the word I was looking for. See and take a look at the two bottom definitions. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism reliable sources guidelines
I just want to say that that article was a superb idea. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm really glad you decided to come on board, as I wasn't sure if it was going to take flight to begin with. Once we have the anarchist sources assessed and the guide on using the MSM we will be off to a great start, I think. Skomorokh  20:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted article
If it's not too much trouble, I would like the best version in the history of the presently deleted/redirected Jason Fortuny article userfied to User:Skomorokh/Fortuny. The subject has just been profiled in The New York Times and easily meets WP:BIO. I would like to work on the article in my userspace and then move it to Jason Fortuny when I am finished. Thanks, Skomorokh  21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Help yourself. The page was undeleted at some point; there are no deleted revisions. J.delanoy gabs adds  21:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I'm a bit confused (but I love the admin! redirect. How wonderful :-).  The entire history is available at the redirect.  I'm not seeing any deleted edits.  Click here to see the history of the article prior to being redirected.  Ping me if I'm missing your point in some way... Keeper    76  21:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, chaps. A little overenthused with my new plaything, it seems. The history has some technical references to deletion, and it's a controversial BLP so I jumped to conclusions.Thanks for your attention, and sorry for wasting your time, Skomorokh  21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! I was just so happy to see my dashboard light up!  I sincerely hope the admin! template catches on.  Very useful, IMO.  Has it been added as an option to the help page(s)?   Keeper    76  21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check it out. WP:HD and WP:RAA so far. No-one has used it other than my good self. It could perhaps be added somewhere to WP:AN, but I'm unfamiliar with administrators' goings-on and don't know where people would look for one. Feel free to use/adapt/advertise the template as you wish. Sincerely, Skomorokh  21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's linked to my talkpage should help, I have several "visitors" daily, many of them admins. It's on my dashboard, and it's on the more generic Template:Dashboard now.  Give it time, I think it will (and should) catch on.  Again, as I said somewhere (maybe here?), if it's only used once a week that means a)Wikipedia is doing just fine without admin intervention, and b)there is no "b".   Keeper    76  22:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolly good; should spread if it is useful, and die a quiet harmless death if it's not. …dismiss /b/ at your peril… Regards, Skomorokh  22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wit and other flattering terms.
Thanks for the kind words. :) Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Say nothing of it. You've stoked the embers of my desire to make specific, less boring and more truthful !articles. Mahalo, Skomorokh  01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
It was tagged as a dirty typo on the account of a recent redirect. The history checked out, and there was no discussion on the talk page. I see the first admin restored it, so I've done the same, but there was nothing to indicate this wasn't uncontroversial. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  17:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Peter. I don't quite understand however; it is obviously not a typo of Pattern Recognition. The target article has information on the redirect subject; why delete? Skomorokh  17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fetish:Footage:Forum
Hey, your redirect usage here; it should be #REDIRECT pagename not # REDIRECT pagename, otherwise it displays as part of a numbered list. Happy editing :). Ironholds 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd. I clicked the button in the edit window and copypasted the section, then copypasted the whole lot to another redirect page. Thanks for catching that. Regards, Skomorokh  17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problemo. With the number of shiny GA and FA tags at the top of your page I realise now you didn't really need the advise, just a notice that I caught it; apologies for talking to you like a noob! Iron<b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As they say, judge the contributions, not the contributor. Quite right to reprimand me :) Skomorokh  17:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your essay
On your recommendation, I just read your essay on the re-prioritization of countervandalism efforts, and found it to be excellent - an eloquent summation of my own thoughts on the issue. I feel that the thread posed to the project by anonymous editors has become less and less severe, and that the time may have come for a reconsideration of barriers to anonymous editing. This essay could be important in turning the tide, as so many people have not recognized how much things have changed.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad you find it valuable. If you have any suggestions on how it might be improved, or put more forcefully, or expanded to related issues, please by all means share them. I think we are a culture in crisis, moving towards an environment where anonymous editing is viewed with hostility and suspicion first and foremost, and towards a hierarchical project in accord with the iron law of oligarchy. I've tried to advertise the essay a bit, to little effect, but if you have any other initiatives in mind to "turn the tide", please let me know. Solidarity, Skomorokh  20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
It fell under the criterion R3 of Speedy Deletion - Implausible typo.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not that I think it is a typo, it's that it is an implausible typo, meaning, it is a series of words which bare no meaning to what it redirects to, as in, it could redirect to any number of things, and there are no sources cited that prove it would only redirect to this. If I am wrong, please cite your sources.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here to keep the conversation together, if it's all the same with you. It's pretty evident that you are not familiar with either Pattern Recognition or with Fetish: Footage: Forum. Yet, you consider yourself qualified to judge the meaning of their relationship. Take a look at the first three Google hits for "Fetish: Footage: Forum". Do you really expect me to cite sources every time I create a redirect from a subtopic? Skomorokh 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every editor here is qualified to edit Wikipedia, we are all on equal grounds. No, I do not expect you to, however, I do expect you to when the article does not even mention the source words in the redirect.  Google hits do not establish notability, and if you can't cite that these series of words are only used in this instance in this film, I'm going to have to CSD it again, and request protection.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 00:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * !! Skomorokh 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeesh. I hate page protection abuse. Page protection in general is something to use sparingly and temporarily, since in principle it goes against the concept of a wiki, which is to make bad edits easy to correct rather than hard to make. And in many cases, protection is simply used to squash dissent, since the disagreeing user is probably not going to bother expending the political capital needed to get another admin to wheel war in the matter. Just my uninvited $0.02. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I empathise, Aldrich. Check out this related essay I wrote and let me know what you think. Skomorokh 01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Fetish: Footage: Forum
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a better idea besides CSD.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)