User talk:Skomorokh/deset

How do I shot Wikipedia?

Just because someone fixes an article with a bit of humour doesn't mean you have to revert it completely. Just take out the humour and leave the improvements. Also, you even reverted the many spelling errors. Ergo, i reverted your revert.

I see...I'll be sure to take heed of your anonymous, vague and unspecific comments. скоморохъ 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article talkspace /Temp pages when there are copyvio issues with the mainspace page

Hey, please see the discussion here User_talk:MisterBee1966#Hans_G.C3.B6tz, I'm trying to straighten this whole thing out as several editors are trying to salvage copyvio articles, but aren't familiar with the correct procedure. Per WP:CV the clean copy is to be created as a /Temp page in the article's talkspace. A couple of editors have gotten confused and tried to create the /Temp page in the mainspace, which isn't allowed. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

V vs. Truth

I've posted a question here. It seems to me ridiculous to leave something in that is verifiably wrong, but I'm curious to see what the policy wonks have to say about it. Murderbike (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, totally, I've never seen that board before, sounds useful, or like a clusterfuck. Murderbike (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Oh well...

I've merged it all together again. The content that user adds can't be kept. Not sure how to go about it if he/she keeps adding it.... SGGH ^speak! 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Have fun

I'm out. There's real work to be done, elsewhere, where the rules don't protect every vandal with a web browser. Feel free to make use of the resources at the Libertarian Labyrinth. Libertatia (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, best of luck here. I've got to work elsewhere. But the "Labyrinth" will start to have lots of material not available in any of the other digital libraries. I'll poke in from time to time, to see if I can help with sources. Libertatia (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my...

Well, I am not sure how to respond to your message, and I certainly do not know how to respond to the message left on the Bizarro fiction talk page. I am flummoxed. Thank you for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah Pook is Here

Have you seen this [1]? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I had been dimly aware of the collaboration, bud hadn't heard much about it in recent years. Strange the things the internet produces; the imagery is fascinating. скоморохъ 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The opening image shows a strong influence of Brueghel (especially his Triumph of Death) and Bosch, through the lens of Dali, and probably Ernst as well. Very striking. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reduction in scope of {{Template:Forms of government}}

Since you have been active on the template talk page before, I thought I would let you know that I have initiated a debate to reduce the size of {{Template:Forms of government}} here. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

images in the william gibson article

too many images with little relevance

With respect, the images in the article break up the monotny of the text, and as they do not overlap, there is no rationale for reducing the number of images. If you examine Wikipedia's other featured articles, you'll notice a similar proliferation of images. Regards, скоморохъ 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spectacle

In your learned opinion, do you think it is necessary to have an article entitled Spectacle (Situationism) in addition to the article The Society of the Spectacle? I had been considering moving the first article to a more appropriate title (in keeping with the assertion that there is no such thing as "situationism"), and then thought, 'Why not just merge it with the article about the book?' There is currently an abandoned merge suggestion for Political spectacle to be merged w/ Spectacle (Situationism), and I'll just take care of that at the same time. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the articles, the criteria for having a separate article would be non-trivial coverage in notable arenas independent of Debord or the adaptation or development of the concept beyond the book's treatment by notable writers. Either of these, coupled with an article length that would make summarizing info on the concept in the book article without losing valuable content very difficult, would be sufficient reason for keeping a separate article.

Looking at the articles, there is no reason to keep Spectacle (Situationism) and Political spectacle separate. Spectacle (Situationism) is actually longer than the book article, and the merged political spectacle/spectacle (situationism) would have far more independent sources. The book article has several concepts besides the Spectacle in its ideas section, and to merge the Spectacle info in would vastly overshadow the rest of the article unless the majority of the Spectacle content was not included. As for development of the concept, the articles claim that the concept of the Spectacle predated Debord and the Marxists, was influential beyond the book in a highly significant manner (Lyotard y Baudrillard), and was modified by Debord after the book was published. So, while I agree that the title needs to be changed (no ideas), and that the current article is quite problematic, the Spectacle itself clearly qualifies as a notable topic in its own right, independent from the book. скоморохъ 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you've been busy! I went to the kitchen to make dinner, and I return to find that you've done all my work for me. Thank you. Your argument above is more than persuasive. I still intend to move the Spectacle article to some other, more appropriate, title, though I am still uncertain as to what. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion to that effect on the talkpage. In retrospect, it might have been better just to redirect the political spectacle article, as it was mostly incoherent rubbish. I'll leave the cleaning up for you to do! скоморохъ 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blast and damn! There I thought I had the rest of the evening off to get drunk... I'll get the broom and dust pan. Meh. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pattern Recognition

Since you've taken William Gibson to FA, would you be interested in reviewing Pattern Recognition? It has been hanging around the bottom of the FAC list for a couple days at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pattern Recognition (novel). --maclean 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to, I checked the article a while back and noticed your stellar work. It might take a day or two before I add a review as I am not thoroughly familiar with the featured article criteria. Regards, скоморохъ 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

Hello. I had just blocked the sockpuppet and was archiving the page per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators. Sorry for the lack of explanation. Evil saltine (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for jumping the gun rolling back your edit, and thank you for inspecting the case. Regards, скоморохъ 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Law in Pennsylvania

I declined your speedy request -- although this page definitely is an essay, it most certainly is not a "test page". It should go to AfD. - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In assuming good faith, it's not in the best spirit of the project to implicitly cite a new editor as soapboxing, but I won't contest the matter. скоморохъ 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

198.237.103.101 Speedy delete

Wow, you're fast. I was just about to add a speedy deletion template but found the article had already been deleted. Good work. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, my pleasure скоморохъ 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

SOFIXIT

SOFIXIT

I see...скоморохъ 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message.

Done and done. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, let's hope this settles the matter. скоморохъ 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, of course. I hope so as well. I was half-tempted to ask for your input over at the Massurrealism AfD, but I wash my hands of it... And, with that, goodnight! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

Hi! You have done considerable work on the {{Anarchism sidebar}}. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert

The name Anarchy is in the title of the book I added. I'm not exactly sure what kind of anarchism he espoused but it still falls under the general summary of anarchism nonetheless. Why are you splitting hairs with me on this exactly? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nozick is not an anarchist, nor is the book an anarchist book - it simply does not belong. He espoused a minarchist libertarianism, which does not fall under any category of anarchism, as it is a statist ideology. If you find this difficult to understand, our article on Anarchy, State and Utopia has a useful Criticism section where his differences with anarchists are explained. Regards, скоморохъ 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually was not aware of the the term minarchist until just now. You could actually be a little less on the snappy side though. Cheers, and thanks for the explanation. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I hope you find the concept useful. Apologies if you find my manner objectionable. скоморохъ 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. I have thicker skin than that. No need to apologize, this has been my easiest revert discussion to date. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Situationism

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this and give me your opinion? I would appreciate it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm I'm not quite sure what outcome you are now looking for...the discussion is closed, and the closing admin's decision was, I think, apt. I personally see no value whatseover in having a "Situationism" [sic] category, but I don't think it's kosher to renominate it for deletion right after your last attempt did not meet with community approval. Perhaps the best thing to do is to have a Category:Situationist International and replace Category:Situationism with that where appropriate. A secondary source to the effect that there was no such thing as Situationism should quell any objections. Tell me more of your thoughts and I might be of better help...скоморохъ 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, everything was in turmoil yesterday, and I was rushed when I left that message.

No, I haven't any intention of nominating it again. I was sort of surprised by the lack of attention the nomination received, and I found John's comments and responses perplexing. His objections were never quite clear to me. At any rate, what I was asking for from you was more your overall opinion on the discussion, and if you had any advice on how I might have handled it better. Frankly, I think I made a sound argument. I like your idea, though, of a separate category. I think I will do just that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

CrimethInc. GA

Congratulations! You did great work improving that article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; it was something of a struggle to find sources to pin down the elusive and anonymous Crimethinkers. скоморохъ 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Clayton location pictures

See the talk page. I decided to put some pictures of the actual locations used, and at this time of year (and near dusk), they look exactly like the movie. Hope that makes the reasoning behind the bridge picture clear. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The section of bridge shown in the newer pic is the left end in the older pic (the one taken in summertime). At this time of year it's easier to see where the hill is from the view in the summer pic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and nature and the like

I removed the prods on these redirects because prod is not used for redirects. You want to use Redirects for Discussion instead. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much; thanks for responding swiftly to my errant actions. I may nominate the articles for a mass RFD at a later date. скоморохъ 11:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Skomorokh for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on William Gibson - nice job on that article, I'd actually checked it out a bit before because I used it on a couple portals. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am verily honoured; I have watched your efforts at building articles on Scientology and Anonymous while they were collapsing all around you – a feat much more difficult than renovating the comparably placid William Gibson! Thank you, and good luck with your future endevours. скоморохъ 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Per Bylund

An editor has nominated Per Bylund, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Bylund (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crimethinc. criticisms

Hey, I feel like this issue needs more outside help, and was thinking of trying to drag an admin in to it. What do you think? Murderbike (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur: I was thinking either a report at WP:ANI or a Request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. скоморохъ 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC for the article as well to go along with that? Murderbike (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there's really a problem with the article - sure, it would be better to get more decent criticism and third-party accounts, but it's not for want of trying. This seems like a case of an editor who simply does not understand the function of references vis a vis external links, and is completely intransigent in the face of any attempts at mediation. The Request for editor assistance didn't turn up any NPOV issues, so I think unless an outsider at RFC or ANI sees a problem we should hold off on an article RFC, especially seeing as it was just passed GA with flying colours. скоморохъ 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Murderbike (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, the section was readded, but I didn't revert, for fear of violating 3RR, but I obviously think it should be out. Should we go ahead with an RfC, or should I just bring it up (AGAIN) on the talk page and hope someone else reverts it? Murderbike (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, been busy in real life. I had a look at the RfC process and it seems quite formal and daunting when all that's really needed is someone to administer a WP:TROUT in the right quarters. I'll create a brief entry at WP:ANI. скоморохъ 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikiproject Tool update

A few updates in events:

• Maynard James Keenan has been listed for copy-edit at the WP:LoCE, however, the backlog is quite long. Therefore, if anyone has copy-editing skills, please go over the article. I would do it myself, but I've done quite a bit of work on the article and I am incapable of copy-editing my own work.
• Maynard James Keenan discography has been worked back into the bio and has been determined to be redundant of the main discographies. It will most likely be deleted this week.
• Devo Keenan has been created. I think this is a good opportunity for the project to get together and create a DYK entry. The article needs to be expanded and referenced. Hopefully this is possible. I've not yet looked to see how much information is available. Please take time to help with this, if you can. We have four days!!

Thanks to everyone who has helped thus far. The project is still very new, but good progress is being made! Lara❤Love 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

my actions are appropriate

Your warning was inappropriate. I have been here long enough to know what the policies/procedures/processes of Wikipedia are. Your posting a warning to me was basically uncivil. Future comments to this effect on my talkpage will be subject to report at WP:WQA and possibly sanction. Have a nice day. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

LeGuin

Sorry about that, hangovers make for lazy reading. Incidentally, do you and Switch have any plans of re-introducing the list to the article namespace in the near future? It would surely survive an Afd. скоморохъ 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Switch said he'd put it back out when the list was fully completed. I soon helped out, but we fell behind rather quickly. If we'd updated a name a day, we'd be done by now, but you can understand that such a pace was unreasonable. I would like to reintroduce photos, ala the list of atheists Switch based this list on. The photos would be based on just a few photos to each field, prioritizing two or three of the more notable figures. After that, I say we could take it live. If you'd like to push it ahead now, talk to Switch. I've always deferred to his judgement, as he started the project.--Cast (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How About You Shut the Fuck Up?

Stop fucking with my posts you fucking douche bag

I AM Joe Torres. Leave me be.

I assure you sir, I am Joe Torres! I commend you, Mr. Torres, on being so even-handed as to include rape allegations on your own biography; you are a paragon of integrity and a prince among men. скоморохъ 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I left a response on Anarchy In Somalia. I only found one semi-dissenting article. As I'm sure its not up to standards, can you leave me a message explaining why? (I'm not good at reading guidelines without getting confused, which is why I didn't try to edit the article myself. Good thing) If I can figure out whats wrong with that article it will make understanding what is a correct article easy. --76.112.67.33 (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)