User talk:Skomorokh/ख

RE:echoing mailer diablo

The initial format is visible here if you think it can be made clearer/more accurate. Thanks for the thanks, btw :).Ironholds 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your edit: Hadn't thought of that :). I'll transclude it as soon as the nominator turns up to write his statement. Ironholds 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. Something like {{Ab}} would work also. the skomorokh 19:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good evening

You read What Would Tyler Durden Do? too! Wait, that's not why I'm here, that was just something that caught my attention... Oh yes, being a fellow QOTSA fan (And master wiki-renovator, though I'm not a fellow one of those), how does No One Knows look to you? I've been blitzing it with the aim of a GA-nom very, very soon. Red157 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha not owning a television, not living in the U.S. and not caring a whit who these "celebrities" are , I'd have to say I'm not an avid reader. I created the article after looking for sources for Tyler Durden the character, whose article I intend(ed) to create, and finding the blog's wonderful tagline "because fuck them, that's why" too quotable to resist!

Yeah, I'm not really the sort to read a celeb blog, but it's certainly one of the funnier sites on the internet.

As for NOK, I've never worked on a song article before (is there really that much to say?), but without looking at other song GA's , that article looks surprisingly well-developed. Fleshing out the throwaway lines into paragraphs and you'd be in the "achievable within a week's on hold" range, I'd say. Go for it! the skomorokh 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems easier for song articles to get passed than say... album articles, as there's less to say. Though it'll probably depend on the reviewer. Thanks for giving it a look over. Red157 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Best Page

I've just checked the first page, but there is exactly one source that talks about TBPITU. Everything else seems to be passing in reference to Maddox, creator of TBPITU, and only points to notability for Maddox, not for the website itself. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a merge discussion. Please comment on Talk:Maddox (writer), thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that notability a.k.a the justification for a split only requires significant (not exclusive) coverage in reliable sources, I suggest you look at more than "the first page". 1, 2, 3 4, 5, just for starters. The website receives 107 million hits a year. the skomorokh 10:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Two of those are college papers (if which is the bar, would open the floodgates to tons of local stuff being "notable"), WPost article is about Maddox, not his website. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, where the heck did you get 107 million hits a year. It took him, what, at least seven years to get "100 million faces rocked." hbdragon88 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-read my comment. The subject needs merely more than one incidence of significant—meaning non-trivial but not necessarily exlcusive—coverage in reliable sources. Those sources contain non-trivial coverage of the website. Are you seriously going to argue that none of them are reliable? the skomorokh 00:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Now that i've re-read the RS and V pages, I realized that I was thinkinga bout a non-existent criteria. There was a discussion over at the Review that complained how local coverage did not necessarily amount to notability (showing an AFD debate about a nice guy that had mustered with no consensus), and for some reason I thought that applied to Wikipedia, when in reality no such rule had actually been adopted (yet). hbdragon88 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it can be quite hard to keep track of the intricacies of policies and guidelines at times. Regards, the skomorokh 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment you left on my page. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work! the skomorokh 13:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SI influence and legacy

So, Paki.tv went ahead and deleted the see also list again, despite never having come up with a good reason for it. Rather than revert him again, I plan on taking some time today and integrating at least some of that material into the "influence and legacy" section. Fluxus and the Diggers are not really appropriate additions to that section, but I do believe that they fit somewhere, in some sort of discussion of parallel movements that overlapped with the Situationists. If I had a copy at hand, I would like to see whether Home mentions either group in his The Assault on Culture: Utopian Currents from Lettrisme to Class War, which might prove useful. Feel free to put your hand in, if you feel like it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See also minimalism, like popular culture minimalism, is usually the better way to go, though better judgement counseled otherwise in this case. I agree that integration rather than further discussion is the right route to take, and the "influence and legacy" section the best target. I (thought I?) already ref'd/integrated one or two of them, but I'll try and take a look at the others in the next few days if I have time. There's lot of work that could potentially be done on the article if there existed the will. the skomorokh 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree about the need for minimalism. Slowly, I have been going through the articles on my watchlist and paring down the see also lists; I am constantly amazed by the number of articles in which the see also list is entirely repetitive of the article text.

As far as the SI article is concerned, will is not the issue. Resources are an issue, as I do not have some of the resources at my disposal that I would wish. And yes, you did add a ref for Fluxus, which did not seem to dissuade Paki.tv at all. I am going to see what I can find online about connections/overlap between Fluxus and the SI---I am sure Debord must have denounced them at some point---I know, for example, that Jorn claimed Debord influenced Cage, though he is vague about that influence. Anyway, I'll see what I can come up with. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See here for a subpage where I will be thrashing some of this out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has turned out to be a more complex matter than I envisioned, in no small part due to numerous contradictions in the secondary literature. In addition to that, you have contradictions within the SI's stance: in On the Poverty of Student Life, they single out Charles Radcliffe's Heatwave as one of the examples of someone who was getting the "critique of everything" right, while Radcliffe is praising the Provos, the very same people who were being criticized by the SI in the same document just a few pages before. There are connections between the SI and the Provos, notably in the person of Constant, who had been kicked out of the SI. But, saying the Provos were influenced by the Situationists is not quite accurate. At this point, I am not quite sure how to proceed... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have to dig out my dog-ear copy of On the Poverty, but as I recall it was written by a crowd of Strasbourg students who used the resources of their universities students union to publish it - I don't remember it being an official SI document. I (lamentably) haven't access to Heatwave and so cannot accurately comment on Radcliffe's critique of everything vs. praise for the Provos. Despite its attempts at rigid orthodoxy, it's probably a bad idea to think of differences of opinion across SI writings as contradictions. For Wikipedia's purposes, SI does not need to be internally consistent, nor does the SI have to have influenced all the organisations mentioned in the Legacy section. Being a tertiary source, we have the luxury of being able to say "Source X says this while Source Y says that", and not be committed to endorsing either of them. the skomorokh 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The official mythology is that On the Poverty was written by the Strasbourg students, but the reality is that Situationist Mustapha Khayati wrote it. Radcliffe and Heatwave are sadly neglected in most writings about the SI. He is the link between the Rebel Worker Group in Chicago and the SI. Franklin and Penelope Rosemont, from Chicago, were the ones who brought a large number of Situationist tracts back to the US, including the copy of Society of the Spectacle that was translated by Fredy Perlman and published by Black & Red. If I can get my hands on the book Rosemont and Radcliffe edited together a few years ago, it would be a huge help. But, you make a good point, and I am feeling heartened once again! Once more into the breach! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

How many featured articles has WP:FACC produced? I'll pass, thanks. the skomorokh 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking and underlinking in Stonewall riots

Heya. I see you're linking things. Not sure all of this should be done. I tried to link a relevant term once only, and non-relevant terms not at all. Please consult the talk page of the article for further discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll cease for now, see you there. Mahalo, the skomorokh 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Hi Skomorokh: I would like your help, however small, with an article I started for Nicholas Carr's Atlantic article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". Having read it, I am in the process of reading it again. There is also tons of discussion on the web and in print that I think a Wikipedia article should summarize. With these intentions, I have created the Wiki article. Magazine articles I figure are a little tricky to get done around here so I thought you might have some advice.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo MS, it looks like IGMUS is notable enough for an article, I agree. I've only recently written my first article-on-an-article, Disneyland with the Death Penalty (and I certainly agree that it is tricky), so I'm not sure how much help I can be to you. I will, however, take a look at the article and see if I have any suggestions. Mahalo, the skomorokh 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and article move. I will take a look at Disneyland with the Death Penalty for some ideas.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Userfication

{{Admin!}} Yo, can you userfy Meinong's jungle for me at User:Skomorokh/Meinong? Danke, the skomorokh 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Malcolm. the skomorokh 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agrippa (a book of the dead)

Hi, I am reviewing your article, Agrippa (a book of the dead), for GA and have left my initial comments at Talk:Agrippa (a book of the dead)/GA1. It is a fascinating article which is why I choose to review it. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just left some further comments at the GA review. It's the least I can do, after all the suggestions you gave me for Gunnerkrigg Court! —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments both, I agree with much of the reviews and will hopefully get a chance to address things in the next few days. the skomorokh 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I will put the article on hold. Although a hold is technically seven days, the time limit is flexible, so do not worry about it! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Città violenta

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Città violenta, 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.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Striking and Picturesque Delineations of the Grand, Beautiful, Wonderful, and Interesting Scenery Around Loch-Earn

On 9 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Striking and Picturesque Delineations of the Grand, Beautiful, Wonderful, and Interesting Scenery Around Loch-Earn, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

BBHS

Hey, yeah I just saw that. It looks likely that his account was compromised, I looked over his last few contributions and couldn't see a reason for such an outburst. But I won't wheel war with other admins so he'll need to email the address on his talk page to request an unblock and explain the situation. You could try emailing him if that's possible to see what happened? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like to get involved in off-wiki communication for security reasons. He didn't run into any especially vexatious FL/GA noms lately that I can see, so compromise is a possibility. I'll ask the blocking admin to reconsider the usertalk block. Mahalo, the skomorokh 16:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Going, Going, Gone

On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Going, Going, Gone, 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) 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.202.249.62

Are you the same person - if so why the request? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I just saw the thread while commenting on your talkpage and thought I would help out. Regards, the skomorokh 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Operation Spooner?

What in the hell ever happened to that guy? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There were allegations that he was a sock of the notorious anarcho-capitalists of Wikipedia yore: User:Anarcho-capitalism, User:RJII etc. – I personally don't put much credence in the allegations, and there was no technical evidence to support them, but it may have shaken him. I think he also got quite frustrated at the opposition to his very strict interpretation of WP:V. the skomorokh 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh... yes, I remember those allegations. Pity, 'cause I felt he was a good contributor. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, he did some great referencing work on individualist anarchism articles. the skomorokh 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That he did. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Days and Nights of Love and War

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Days and Nights of Love and War, 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) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference

It would be better to remove the reference. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article or omniarchy. If I put a reference on a page that just linked to my myspace, it would be deleted, no discussion about it, right? Please look at this "reference". If I don't hear back from you I'm just going to delete it; it's just nonsense. Shicoco (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, it is perfectly intelligible and contains discussion of the term "onmiarchy". Not only have you mistagged an article, you have now twice attempted to remove the references section. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedias speedy deletion and referencing conventions before doing any further inadvertent damage. Sincerely, the skomorokh 16:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Future Primitive and Other Essays

On 12 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Future Primitive and Other Essays, 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) 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Omniarchy

I did not delete the citation, I deleted the sentence it was attached to. The deletion tag indicates that the article may still be edited. I am trying to make a somewhat good stub out of it, so as it's context, should the article be deleted, may be put elsewhere; perhaps in anarchy.

It has been noted that the Joker in The Dark Knight favors omniarchy. This is the sentence that I deleted; it has no business in a good article. This resembles more of a trivia section. Please express your reason for wanting to keep it. Thanks, Shicoco (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Shicoco, the article is well on its way to being deleted. But every topic deserves its chance, so it is a bad idea to remove what you or I may agree "has no business in a good article". If we removed all the bad content from the article, all would be left would be "Omniarchy is universal rule", with the Aldrich ref. What needs to happen is for both the 17k essay by RipplingBeast (talk · contribs) and the Joker stub by EVCM (talk · contribs) to get a fair hearing. That's what the AfD is doing, so let's wait and see how that turns out. If, improbably, the article is kept, I agree that the Joker ref ought to be removed. But let's not jump the gun, eh? Sincerely, the skomorokh 13:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

25 DYK medal

		The 25 DYK Medal
		T  m  s  e  v  5  b  s  I  u  c  u  i        h  o  u  r  e  D  a  t       l  o  p  t       e  s  b  s       Y  r  a  c  d  m     h         t  v   i   2   K  n  r  o      e  w    --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:D Thanks Jay, I'll try to live up to the spirit of the award! Mahalo, the skomorokh 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern Gothic

I think you thought you were reverting vandalism, but I think the IP editor's deletion was right. It just should have been explained as I did in my edit summary reverting your edit. Aleta ^Sing 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It might do you well to jump to fewer conclusions and pay closer attention to the content you are removing - And the Ass Saw the Angel is described and referenced as Southern Gothic in its article, which is more than can be said for the other purported examples. I'll let you revert yourself. Regards, the skomorokh 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The snarkiness is unnecessary. At the very least, some explanation is required for why it fits in that article. I will attempt to provide that. Aleta ^Sing 18:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A commendable endeavour. the skomorokh 18:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Restorations

{{admin!}} Kindly userfy the last good revisions of Allan Antliff and Against His-Story, Against Leviathan for me at User:Skomorokh/Antliff and User:Skomorokh/Leviathan respectively. Danke, the skomorokh 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Aleta ^Sing 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Grazi, the skomorokh 22:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Aleta ^Sing 23:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)