User talk:Skomorokh/伍

Archives

Just curious why you archived talk at Objectivism page? Why make it hard to find? BTW...Thanks for the invite.--Buster7 (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we would turn over a new leaf; glad to have you on board! Skomorokh 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lakota template

Thanks for fixing Template:User lkt-00. I looked and tried to find how to fix it, but I couldn't. I appreciate the help. Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, let me know if you need help with anything else. Mahalo, Skomorokh 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme!

Murphy's

Can you please provide a quotation from the cited source to back up this edit? I am unable to access it and it seems extremely far-fetched. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo, this is the internet; get thee to Google, who, presuming you are not Chinese, will grant you all the knowledge you seek. Regards, Skomorokh 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Freedom vs Security

I don't think the traditional concept of "freedom" applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a private organization. This private organization has extended freedom to the community in the form of consensus rule. But this same private organization has also appointed the arbitration committee and given it the authority to override consensus rule.

Now, I do admit I am speaking from a capitalist bias. I am talking of a society that respects the idea of ownership, and private property. Perhaps under a communist or anarchic ideal this could be seen as a restriction of freedom.

Consider this comparison, I can say "You can use my bike all the time for years" Now the person who is lent the bike year after year may feel a sense of ownership and control. Now he wants to take it over a bridge and I say "No, I don't want my bike going past the bridge". That is not a restriction on freedom any more than locking my front door limits your freedom to enter my house. The person who has been lent the bike for years may feel ripped off, or that the rule is unfair, but those feelings would not be accurate.

The key difference is that the organization itself has decided to put this rule in place, not some outside force seeking to interfere with our project. I would love to hear your opinion on my position. _{1 != 2} 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully appreciate the capitalist position on "free speech", and I sympathise. You are essentially advancing a formalist Nozickian position, whereby the prior allocation of property rights and subsequent "voluntary transactions" comprise the moral schema within which the justice of all subsequent actions are judged. The obvious objection (at least in the 20th century Rawlsian/communitarian milieu) is that such a propertarian account of justice completely misses the point of what justice is, which is fairness, which is concerned with peoples feelings. The egalitarian need only hypothesise a prior allocation of property, whereby one tycoon has 95% of the property (via prodigious Lockean homesteading for example) and subsequently insists that everyone else may only eat the food from his property if they meet his demands. The egalitarian will then argue that the "voluntary transactions" that need take place for everyone else in the hypothetical scenario to eat are not voluntary at all, since the people are forced to make them or they would die. Such a scenario, the egalitarian, will point out is not fair at all, and it is anything but just. So either you bite the bullet and say, yes this society with one chap owning all the food to begin with would be just, or you rethink your conception of justice. An interesting move by left-libertarian analytic philosophers such as Michael Otsuka is to say homesteading is only legitimate if, when I take a piece of property from the commons, I must only take an amount such that there is the same amount left for everybody else. That has unpalatable implications of its own of course, and certainly undermines the capitalist position, but it is increasingly popular.

Now as much as I enjoy discussing these issues, I must ask what motivated you (who I don't believe I have met) to come to my talkpage with them? I must confess I do not know quite what you are getting at. Skomorokh 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was in response to your creation of the redirect WP:PATRIOTACT, and the edit summary you used. I am a firm believer that if you sacrifice freedom for security that you will lose both, I just don't think it applies in this situation. There is no issue of supply and demand, or restriction of speech, as anyone who wants to speak otherwise can do so on their own blog for free without very little effort. _{1 != 2} 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem like an intelligent chap, I am sure you can appreciate the distinction between analogy and literal comparison. It is always wise to refrain from presuming you understand the intentions of the author of a given text. If your aim is understanding, you will have to work a little harder than that. I created the redirect so I could remember the location of the page, I didn't realise others would come across it, but it seems someone has deleted it now so no matter. Sincerely, Skomorokh 17:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, you sound surprised, I notified you of the deletion discussion and you reverted me. I assumed that you would post your reasoning at the debate. In my defense I was not the only one who saw the redirect as a jab. The reason people came across it was because it was added to the page.

Regardless, I did not come here to rebuke you or any such thing, I simply wanted to respond to your edit summary and see how our different points of view could converge. Peace. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take my revert as a rebuke; I revert all template additions because I have all the pages I care about watchlisted (hint: this shortcut was not one of them). I had no intention of adding that shortcut to the page in question, merely using it as a navigational aid (as redirects, as the saying goes, are cheap). It is certainly too POV to be placed in non-essay non-joke WP-space. Regarding the edit summary, it might be useful if instead of thinking of the freedom/security analogy in terms of property rights, you thought of it in terms of the goals of the project. i.e. the "freedom" (as in ability and ease) of anyone to add useful content to the encyclopedia versus the "security" (in the sense of avoiding damage) of having well-referenced BLP's. The original quote has the connotation that the presence of freedom will provide adequate security (i.e. at the time of the American Revolution, much of the population had the "freedom" to carry weapons, thus giving them "security" against invasion/repression). That analogy holds up here; under what I consider to be the wiki model, we can and should in the vast majority of cases, rely on editors to police themselves, not on administrators to do so. Giving administrators more power or leeway in this respect has the effect of reducing the "freedom" of the wiki because it discourages anyone from adding useful content (i.e. a well-written article about a living person with a claim to notability but no references), and reduces the "security" (defined again as avoidance of damage) because it makes it easier for POV-pushing, overzealous or overly-cautious administrators to implement their preferred version to the exclusion of others. The crucial question is how this will effect the culture of the wiki. Sincerely, Skomorokh 17:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Raegan Butcher

i have restored the criminals category. If the troll keeps harassing you contact me an we will file an RFC against him. John celona (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure David is acting in good faith, but I think the category is appropriate in spite of its stupid rules. Regards, Skomorokh 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Long time...

Glad to see you back! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, mon frère. I am back to the intellectual grindstone. To what are you directing your wiki-energies nowadays? Skomorokh 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been away from Wikipedia for a little while, and just getting back into the swing of things in the last few days. In addition to that "alternative society" article, which is still in need of much work, I have been looking at the DIY ethic and DIY culture articles and trying to figure out how they can be improved. I think a merge of the two is in order, first and foremost. Other than that, I have been paying more attention to Discordian-related articles, and wondering whether I want to reengage with the debates over at the Libertarianism article, which I gave up on in disgust some time back. What about yourself? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Uggh, the libertarianism article is competing with the anarcho-capitalism debacle of yore for obfuscation and the promotion of pov over encyclopedic integrity. My time here is increasingly limited, and thus I no longer can compete with your scope of every-20th-century-cultural-political-or-historical-article. I've retreated to defending the few articles I've helped build and try to fill the glaring gaps in WP's philosophical content with new articles Ami Perrin, In Defense of Anarchism, Three Critics of the Enlightenment. Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Lesson

Completely agreed with the necessary clarification of the source for the confused beginning of the Libertarian article. As an instruction request...What was the purpose of making it a (ref/ref) rather than what it was. Which leads to "inexperienced-editor" question #2...What was it before your clarification?? Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it's a little suspect when trying to establish the left-wing roots of libertarianism that one uses Britannica as an independent reliable source while omitting to mention the fact that it was written by history's foremost anarcho-communist! As for the references, ultimately all references to websites should be wrapped in <ref> tags and upgraded to {{cite web}}, and include the author's name, title of the page, date it was written, name of website/publisher and date you accessed it. This shows the full information in the References section, accessible by a small inline link such as this:. I simply changed [url] to <ref>[url]</ref>, being to lazy to add all the aforementioned info myself. Check out WP:REFB for more details, or feel free to ask if you have any more questions about anything. Regards, Skomorokh 12:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter

WikiProject Tool Newsletter Danny Carey was the Collaboration of the Month (for a couple months) but that didn't really go anywhere. Pomte made a good point here that I didn't see until just now. So, the current CotM is Lateralus. I hope everyone can get motivated to contribute to this article; striving for GA, maybe even FA. If you need some inspiration, go listen to the album! :D Thanks everyone. And welcome to our new members! LaraLove| Talk 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

General question re: WP:COI on AfD

Hi Skomorokh - you mentioned I shouldn't hesitate to ask if I had a question about the WP way of doing things. I now have a question: I just voted/commented on a AfD discussion of a biography, here. I know the subject of the bio, and her investment firm invested in my company. Should I make this clear in my comment? I read WP:COI and it seemed like this wouldn't be a COI. Thanks! Herdrick (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo Ethan, you don't have anything to worry about with regard to conflicts of interest when commenting in AfD debates unless you are hiding some ulterior motives. WP:COI is primarily concerned with keeping the encyclopaedia's articles neutral and free of self-promotion and attack pages. Your comment at AfD stated facts that had not been brought to light before, although you did use "she's prominent in the high tech startup community" as an argument for notability without explaining why you thought that. It might be helpful to add that you are a member of that community. At the very worst it's a minor faux pas, but you've done nothing that breaks any rules. Thanks for contributing! Skomorokh 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infoshop

hello! regarding your edit summary here, i would suggest maybe a criterion of being current should be fixed, or else i imagine the box will sooner or later get overburdened with too many infoshops. right now that's not really a problem though - and i'm busy updating the ASCII (squat) page to make sure it's clear that it is now closed (and why). cheers, Mujinga (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo, thanks for taking an interest in the template! I'm not worried by overpopulation, because I we already have all the (non-internet) articles in Category:Infoshops, and even if we include everything in Category:Social centres, it's a manageable number. Another issue is that these articles are generally unreferenced and it's not at all clear that the infoshops in question are open or closed. If there is a problem with overpopulation, we simply restrict the definition of "infoshop" so that the shop itself or an outside source has to describe it as an infoshop. Anyway, we'll address that problem if and when it arises. Thanks again, Skomorokh 01:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

sounds ok, nice one - i will add some european ones if it comes to mind. cheers Mujinga (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mannino article

I did cite a reference, look at the article again, thank you. General Mannino (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

External links and references are different things; references should preferably cited inline, so we know exactly which part of the article is supported by sources and which is not. I won't restore the tag, but it would be best if you integrated the external link appropriately. Regards, Skomorokh 05:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, you are a much better editor than most Wikipedia users. No, I did not remove the tag, but someone else seems to be adding more stuff onto the tag. General Mannino (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said you removed the "unreferenced" parameter from the "articleissues" tag. I've left a message on the talkpage of the other editor explaining why you removed it. Regards, Skomorokh 05:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. General Mannino (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He removed the tag again! Smells like a placating 3RR duck to me. HoundDog23 (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of this??? HoundDog23 (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In Defense of Anarchism

On 25 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In Defense of 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) 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on this! Somehow, I missed it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk; a certain Anarchism Task Force member hasn't been watching the project page. Fie, for shame! Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for reverting the deletion of part of my comment on the Raegan Butcher talk page. I've left this query on the deleting editor's talk page. David in DC (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it seems as if the matter has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction; thanks for remaining civil and polite throughout the reversions. Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Three critics of the Enlightenment

Hi there, I didn't get around to commenting on your article on the DYK suggestions page as I intended, so in an attempt to speed up a response I'll comment here instead.

The main problem I have with the article currently is that the description of Hamann's views don't make sense to me. Is Hamann the one who believes that there can be no thought without language? If so, that seems very much at odds with a counter-enlightenment position, which IMO would be more likely to express the view that thought is more of a numinous sort of activity than a rational, "Cartesian" process.

So I don't know whether I've got the wrong end of the stick or not, but I definitely feel that his ideas could be better clarified. Same goes for the counter enlightenment article itself. Hope that helps. BTW I will still promote your article if it's a little overdue, provided we can resolve this matter reasonably quickly. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

[1] Please do not do this anymore. Enigma ^message 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That edit was by an indefinitely banned account masquerading as an approved bot without revealing its owner, with an obviously POV account name, randomly committing number vandalism without edit summaries. In future, please think before you crusade around and refrain from cluttering my talkpage and wasting my time with this impertinent nonsense. Skomorokh 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A favor...

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this and tell me if you think all that detail is needed for those characters? I happen to think that it is unnecessary, poorly worded, and basically unencyclopaedic content more appropriate for a movie fan page. But, I would like a second opinion. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to the party. Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this site ok to use?

Skomorokh, I am wondering if there is any problem using this site as a reference http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Biophysical economics - Encyclopedia of Earth. I would like to make more reference citation or footnotes to some of the articles I have been working on. This is new information for me and I am excited about it. Can I use this Encyclopedia without problem as an E.L. ... or is it best used in quotes as to its information in the article.... in other words can I take segments and copy it and then reference it that way... and give a citation? Your opinion please. skip sievert (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up... another editor said it was ok... thanks skip sievert (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding Skip, I have not been on the Wikipedia for a spell. Skomorokh 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Roark Shrugged

It is impossible to edit The Fountainhead. After I came upon the article, my Randian brain (is that on the left or the right side?) was awakened. For that I'm glad. But the article is just toooo long and drawn out. It should encapsolate the book as a novel and explain the philosophy that Rand promotes as a foundation---some history, before and after publication, etc etc.... (In a very real way the whole concept of Wikipedia confronts Rand's independant Hero, Howard Roark) Do I want to struggle with this article, finetuning and editing, only to see it disfigured by whomever gets a whim to change it? It's worth the effort I guess! But, like Courtland, it may need to be blown up one day!!!.....I've run across an older edition with a very precise, clear introduction. I will type it out later this week and put it here for you to see. --Buster7 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree Buster, that article makes me wince. Hopefully we can cut down on some of the original research and beat it into shape. Skomorokh 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I need your help.

I really want your opinion on how I should respond to this. The whole situation is getting out of hand. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP is a troll. The issue in question (lyrics as public domain) is debatable. Lyrics which dwarf the article and are replicated on a sister project have no place being in the article. Differences between versions can be pointed out if worth mentioning, i.e. "Version x contains the line "blah blah blah", while version y reads "yadda yadda yadda". I am Skomorokh and I approve this message. 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Well said. His most recent message on my talk page says that this is a matter of principle! I fail to see how this can be reconciled with his behaviour, i.e., calling me a "faggot," etc. *yawn* This kind of shit really gets old, y'know? Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

De nada. Perhaps we are being uncharitable and the valiant and principled editor has mistaken you for a homosexual, unaware that friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Troll blocked, article cleansed, next! 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that essay, and have not read it in at least a year. Good stuff. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... this might be of interest. I will be interested in seeing whether anything comes of it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. The editor in question seems to have reined herself in. Drop me a line if the content dispute flares up again. Things should be settled until our noble hero returns from his block. In the meantime, it's worth noting aspersions have been cast on Wikiquote concerning the supposedly public domain status of some of the lyrics. Skomorokh 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sold in stores

First of all, the article was created by a banned user when he was banned, and did not include substantial contributions from any other editor. Therefore, according to WP:CSD, it is eligible for deletion, and therefore my actions, whatever their merits (I'll get to those in a second), was decidedly in process. Now, I fully recognize that just because an article is eligible for speedy deletion doesn't mean that it necessarily should be deleted. In this case, I deleted all of User:JeanLatore's G5-eligible creations because he recently returned as a sockpuppet and left messages on a number of users talk pages implying that he had been planting subtle inaccuracies over the course of his article-editing career. Because of that, I think it's in the best interests of the project that as many of his edits as possible be removed (having finished with the G5 eligible stuff, I'm in the process of making a list of non-G4 eligible stuff that will either have to be fact-checked or have his edits excised). I hope you understand this rationale. I would have no objection to re-creation (I haven't checked if you're an admin, but if you're not I'd be pleased to provide you with the content of the article), provided whoever re-creates it is prepared to stand behind everything in the newly-created article, whether or not the content is the same as in JeanLatore's version. If this solution isn't acceptable to you, I suppose there's WP:DRV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I owe you an apology as your action was within process; I hadn't imagined such a profoundly stupid criterion would have gotten in there. Now, to paraphrase your good self, can does not imply should. So we have a host of speedyable articles which may or may not have subtle inaccuracies. Do you really think deletion is the appropriate first resort to the possibility of subtle inaccuracies in articles?! Can you imagine if we started deleting articles that might have subtle inaccuracies where they assuredly exist (pseudoscience, Israel/Palestine articles etc.)? Articles are important; banned editors are not. The community has made a case for the suitability of this topic in the encyclopaedia which has not been defeated. As such, given that this is not in a sensitive (e.g. BLP) area, the topic should be recreated with immediate effect. I am not an administrator, but I suggest you restore the article to save face. I would gladly accept a userfied version so that it may be examined and returned swiftly to the mainspace. We remove and vet material from problematic articles, and return it verified if at all. We do not delete on presumption. I appreciate your actions are in good faith with the encyclopaedias interest at heart, but this is a frightfully wrongheaded approach. Sincerely, Skomorokh 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, we still disagree on the merits of my actions (note that the only articles I deleted were those in which JL was the sole substantive contributor - frankly, if a given Israel/Palestine article was written entirely by one editor who admitted that he was subtly sabotaging the mainspace, I'd be in favour of deleting it too - and am making a list of other articles, not eligible for deletion, that require examination), but we seem to agree on a solution. I'll userfy the article at User:Skomorokh/Not sold in stores in just a second. After that, fact check at your leisure, and feel free to move it back to mainspace once you're prepared to stand behind its accuracy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editors in some instances enjoy writing quality content, despite themselves as a quick perusal of WP:WBFAN indicates. I have vetted the article for dubious content and returned it to the mainspace. There may be page history issues, but that it is beyond my technical ability to fix. I urge to be less hasty with whatever other articles there are; just stub them to a definition if necessary and preserve the article history for all to view so that the articles may be built back up without having to [reinvent the wheel]]. Thank you for your courtesy and helpfulness about this. Sincerely,Skomorokh 03:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually done with deleting for now. With the remaining articles, the edits he made are sufficiently embedded in the history that they'll need to be closely examined; I'll do so over the next few days (your assistance would be appreciated, if you were so-inclined). As for the page history, I don't think there are any issues. I provided attribution to JeanLatore in the edit summary of the article re-creation, and he was the only substantial contributor, so the GFDL should be satisfied. Thanks for your help. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there any talkpage associated with the article that could be undeleted? I would be happy to assist in rooting through Jean's contribs, just point me in the direction. Sincerely, 03:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page - thanks for the reminder. As for Jean's edits, the list of articles is at User:Sarcasticidealist/JL fact-checking. Besides that, if your priority is salvaging deleted material, I could provide you with the list of the articles I deleted on my spree, and we could follow the same procedure with any of them that you felt comfortable reviewing as we did for NSIS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was the fact that the Not sold article had survived AfD that concerned me. I'm less interested in rescuing Anal Sex with Sluts et al, but if there are other plausibly inclusion-worthy topics I will shepherd them back to the mainspace. I'll have a look at your list and comb through those in my areas of competence. Skomorokh 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)