User talk:Skomorokh/šest

Re: Bob Helms

Thank you for your well-thought-out and well-written response to Bob Helms on the Peter Lamborn Wilson talk page. I was trying to think of something to say to him, and not making much progress, when I noticed you'd beaten me to it. That came as a great relief to me, because I was having trouble coming up with anything. To be perfectly honest, I despise the man, and was afraid that, were I to respond to him, I would end up saying something I would regret. This fight about whether Helms's anti-Hakim Bey article is fit for Wikipedia has (in my opinion) gone on long enough, and I would like to see it finally put to rest. Certainly, the man is deserving of criticism, and a good article would have a section for that purpose. However, I truly feel the Helms article crosses the line. At any rate, thanks for your response. You said exactly what needed saying. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your GA nomination of Haymarket Riot...

...is on hold for some improvements. No hurry if you're busy, you've got until the 23rd to deal with it. Happy editing, VanTucky 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for CSD

"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the non-free content criteria and the uploader has been given 48 hours' notification (for images uploaded after July 13, 2006) or seven days' notification (for images uploaded before that date). (CSD I7)."

Emphasis mine. In the future, if you're not inclined to fix the issues of an image yourself, consider tagging the image with the proper tag and then placing the proper tag in the articles the image is used in (in order to give interested parties the 48 hours hours to fix it), rather than removing the images and tagging for speedy deletion. The image that you improperly tagged for speedy deletion and removed from the article without just cause has been fixed and replaced. Regards, Lara❤Love 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I apologise for not giving the 48 hours; you were right to remove the speedy tag. I had been following the guidelines given by Twinkle which, in retrospect, don't tell the whole story. You are obviously mistaken in thinking the image was removed from the article without just cause, as the image did not have at the time of removal a valid fair use claim for Maynard James Keenan. I also disagree that the image meets criterion #8. Thank you for showing concern for contested content and best of luck with bringing MJK to Ga status. Skomorokh ^incite 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Words of Advice: William S. Burroughs On the Road

RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} suggested that you might suggest the correct cats for this documentary on Beat Generation writer and artist Willaiam S. Burroughs. Any help appreciated. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, glad to help. I added 4 documentary-related categories and tinkered around with other elements of the article. Thanks for writing it to begin with, I would never have known of the film's existence otherwise! Let me know if you need anything further, Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 09:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Thank you for your help. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-admins with high edit counts

I've reverted your addition of User:LaraLove because she is and admin. The purpose of the list is to list non-admins. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I added an extraneous space while checking list. Skomorokh ^incite 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging templates for speedy deletion

Please be careful, when tagging templates for speedy deletion, that pages which transclude them don't get tagged along with them. To avoid tis, please put a <noinclude> tag before, and a </noinclude> tag after, the speedy deletion template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it using Twinkle which I thought would handle the technical issues but evidently does not. Will be more diligent in future, thanks for repairing the damage. Skomorokh ^incite 12:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Californication (TV series)

I've tried starting a discussion on that pop culture section on the article's discussion page. No one has replied yet. Care to give you input, friend? Thank you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was just about to, thanks for the heads up. Skomorokh ^incite 22:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that

Great attention to detail however there's a usage aspect to this you might not be aware of. I've replied on my talk page. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May Day

Do you have the May Day article on your watch list? I was wondering what (if any) your thoughts are on the recent, unilateral decision on the part of one editor to remove nearly all the information about International Workers' Day and split said information into a separate article. His opinion seems to be that only the pagan/cultural aspect of May Day is legitimate, and that the post-Haymarket adoption of the holiday by anarchist and socialists is a "tangent." I am not going to start a fight about it unless I have some back up. There are good reasons (length of the article being the best one, in my opinion) to split that information into a separate article. But, the manner in which he did it, and his stated reasons, do not seem kosher to me. Do you have an opinion? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, it is not among the 5,070 pages on my watchlist, so I haven't been keeping track. I'm afraid I'm not strong on American history, but this seems to be a weight issue. The size of a section alone is not justification for slashing 2/3rds of the content from the article. Weight issues are usually best solved by checking the weight the sources give to the various sections. The article claimed that IWD is used simultaneously with May Day; if so, it should be pretty easy to find a source that discusses IWD in the intro to the source's treatment of May Day, and take our cue from how much IWD is discussed therein to decide how much of IWD belongs in the May Day article. As I am generally ignorant of the topic area, I won't be much use as a critical reader of the source material, but let me know if I can help in any other way. The editor did start a discussion, which might be a place to start, and you could also try their talkpage. Best, Skomorokh ^confer 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5,070?!! My god, man, you must be mad! At any rate, thank you for your reply. I will try to line up some other editors---as it happens, the page is on my watchlist, but I am far from an expert on the subject, so I am going to need some backup. Thanks, as always, for your time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! In the meantime I suppose I should probably get a job. Arrivederci, Skomorokh ^confer 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A job? What's that? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the sources, but from what I gather it is some sort of structural limitation on editing, thus violating Wikipedia's egalitarian collaborative spirit by creating an elite tranche of unjobbed editors who may edit freely throughout the day. Probably breaches WP:NEO and WP:OR too; I'm considering nominating it for deletion. Skomorokh ^confer 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly support such a nomination, and will vote yea! Huzzah! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

grammarnerdismarians

My talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stormfront

i was not trying to use a weasel phrase, but could not think of another term that was more concise. i was trying to adhere to some consensus, and chose 'widely' as the references referred to a majority point of view, albeit an incorrect one. the_undertow ^talk 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my edit summary implied I thought you were trying to be weasely, I have no doubts your edits are in good faith; the problem is I don't see any claims as to what the majority view is or what is widely considered in those references. It's editorial interpretation on our part to consider the BBC and the NYT as representative of what is widely considered; especially given the poor standard of reporting on this case. Skomorokh ^confer 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of My Edit On Libertarianism

Although I agree that the disambig cannot be too long, merely labeling it propertarian hardly suffices, since the question for libertarians is not simply whether or not property can be held, but rather how can property be justly acquired.

I have edited it again, but made it shorter than I had made it the first time (albeit longer than your edit). It now reads, "the political philosophy holding that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade."

I still feel this is a bit long, but I removed the mention of "little- or no-government."

I fear it's not enough to simply point out that libertarians believe in property, for what is property? Simply taking your watch doesn't make it my property, at least according to libertarianism. It could, however, imply such under other propertarian philosophies, and especially under nihilism, which does have advocate the existence of ethics.

If you can think of a way of cutting this down and making it shorter without removing the core that property must be justly acquired according to libertarianism, and not merely held, be my guest. I don't mean to set this down in stone. :)

Yours truly,
Alex Peak

Yo Alex, thanks for your diligence. I can appreciate most of what you say, but I think it's not exactly on-point. Clearly, the lede sentence of the article should say exactly what it is (i.e. propertarian political philosophy" would be appalingly inadequate); the point of the disambiguation statement is solely to make it clear to confused readers who might be looking for one of the other meanings. For example, if there were two articles roughly associated with the term "libertarian", where one of them was libertarianism", and the other one was a duck, a perfectly good disambiguation statement would be "This page is about the philosophy. For the duck, see Libertarian (duck)".

In this case, libertarianism (disambiguation) lists three articles other than libertarianism: Libertarian socialism, Civil libertarianism and Libertarianism (metaphysics). So all our disambiguation statement has to do is make it clear the libertarianism article is not about the socialist philosophy, the free speech/aclu advocacy or the stance on free will. Saying "political" gets rid of the latter, but how do we concisely differentiate libertarianism from civil and socialist libertarianism? I think a reference to private property will do exactly that. So would you be happy with

? Skomorokh ^confer 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is convincing. Thanks. Allixpeeke (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you for your open-minded attitude. Skomorokh ^confer 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Yo, I uploaded an apparently free image of Mary-Kate Olsen which you removed from said article with the explanation "not actually a free license image". The image is sourced from Flickr, where it is under a CC, Wiki-compatible license. Now I can't find any trace of the image either on Wikipedia or Commons. I've used similarly sourced images in the Olsen Twins and [[Ashley Olsen] articles, so if there was something wrong with the Mary-Kate Olsen image, those images should probably be looked at too. Can you shed any light on the matter? Thanks, Skomorokh ^confer 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a good 10-30% of supposed CC images on Flickr simply aren't. People upload images as Creative Commons, totally oblivious to what the license even is. This image, if you looked at the bottom, has a desktop background website address. If you go to the category description, it says that he didn't take the pictures, he just finds the people in the category beautiful. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

Hello! Thanks for noticing my good faith edits to Anarcha-feminism. :) I now understand why you reverted them. --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your gracious response. Incidentally, when I saw you had joined the Anarchism taskforce and had read your userpage, I was half-thinking of asking if you could rewrite the anarcha-feminism article! Skomorokh ^confer 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's interesting because there's a discussion going on on my talk page about anarchism articles, under "hey". Feel free to add your input to the discussion. I'd appreciate it. --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN on Gibson list

I'm not sure what you are talking about: a 978 ISBN-13 is always equivalent to a ISBN-10 one. As such, "0-88878-290-X" and "978-0-88878-290-8" cannot, by the very design of the system, refer to "different edition" (though they may refer to different printing date, which would be surprising, that is irrelevant). The only reason that could be would be that two different books with the ISBN-10 were entered in a system, and only one also has the ISBN-13 given (because it's not possible for a 1989 book to have originally received an ISBN-13). It is my belief that it is simpler to give ISBN-10 for books that were only issued them at the time they were published, as most systems are equipped to automatically convert them anyway. Circeus (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appeared that your change had introduced an error, when in fact the error was already present in the original version which took its information from this Amazon page. I'm trying to find the earliest publication of the book, but inputting Amazon's ISBN 0-88878-290-X , supposedly for a 1989/1990 version into Ottobib gives 2002. Given that you seem more knowledgeable about these things than I, do you know how I might find the earliest publication details? Thanks in advance, and sorry again for blaming you for my error! Skomorokh ^confer 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(grumbles about stupid bots and edit conflicts) My bet is that whatever database Ottobib uses, it refers solely to the printings by EDGE, which apparently bought the Tesseract books (or whatever happened exactly), but are publishing them with the same ISBN (which they shouldn't be doing because the publisher part of the ISBN becomes misleading, but there's not much we can do). Most libraries trace the ISBN to 1990 (or c1990) editions by Porcépic Books, so I'd go with that. Circeus (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been working for fun on a bibliography myself, so I know exaclt how frustrating they can get. Circeus (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I'm going to pretend that OCLC numbers are authoritative and use WorldCat's version. Skomorokh ^confer 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a question of "pretending" given that we don't know what Ottobib uses to begin with, and it's the only thing to give a discordant number, I'd certainly say Worldcat is more authoritative. Circeus (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Is there a guideline on these sort of disputes?Skomorokh ^confer 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'd like to think it's just bibliographic good sense (we know where the Worldcat numbers are from—librarians—, but we have no idea where the Ottobib numbers are from). Circeus (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RS Noticeboard

I had no idea that thing existed. Excellent decision. the_undertow ^talk 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find noticeboards 75% more helpful when they endorse my opinion. Haha. the_undertow ^talk 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just call me lucky? Come on, I do know a little about policy :P the_undertow ^talk 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anarcho-capitalism

Just so you know, this user is permanently blocked as a sockpuppet, so can't really participate in deletion discussions. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, it's a procedural thing with Twinkle. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye on things though! Skomorokh ^confer 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template collapse

Yo, any idea why this edit didn't seem to change {{Anarchism}}'s state? I can't figure out how to expand templates whose default state is collapse. Skomorokh ^confer 03:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that comes as a surprise to me. I've now tried to edit it to, and it isn't working out. Must be something specific to the html code of the template. We can remove the notice from the template page if it isn't working.--Cast (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I tried following the guidelines at Template:Navbox but to no avail – I'll leave it up to you as to which notice to include. Skomorokh ^confer 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verda Bryant

Turned down speedy delete request. Although assertion is weak, notability is asserted. Suggest taking to WP:AFD. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Skomorokh ^confer 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Jeyasekharan Medical trust and nursing home

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Dr.Jeyasekharan Medical trust and nursing home. The reason is:

about a location, not an organization, so CSD A7 doesn't apply

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A trust and nursing home is a location not an organization? I must say that's a rather peculiar interpretation. Skomorokh ^confer 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nursing home is a location just as much as a school is. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept that as in accordance with policy, then the policy seems poorly-phrased, ambiguous and counter-intuitive. But I respect your application. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush (band)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from George W. Bush (band), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Oh, and by the way, said AFD is already here. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]