User talk:Skomorokh/γ

Source for anarchist communism being the largest school of anarchist thought.

Could you find a couple? I'm fairly certain they exist, I'd be highly surprised if they didn't. I'm busy today and the guy on the talk page doesn't strike me as the type that will wait patiently before he decides to edit the article to declare it an 'oxymoron'. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If supporting sources are not in the anarchism article they are probably not on-wiki at all, as that is something tricky to ref. I can't imagine there has ever been much in the way of an anarchist census, so the best you expect is probably the word of some eminent historian (Avrich gives an authoritative breakdown on the Russian scene for example). It's a bad week for me, but I should be reunited with my library in a day or two and I'll have a look at what Messrs. Nettlau, Skirda, Woodcock et al have to say on the issue. Cheers, Skomorokh 02:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I have reviewed the article you nominated at WP:GAN. You can respond or comment here: Talk:The Man from London/GA1. -maclean (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll look in later. Skomorokh 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New encyclopedism

Don't recall, truth be told; probably cribbed it from some other article where it was likewise uncited. The Category:New encyclopedism predates the article and I recall creating the article after seeing the category had no main article. You might want to inquire with the editors of the category page, User:KYPark and User:Robert Daoust. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks very much. Skomorokh 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA mentor

I have previously been interested in reviewing GA nominees, but I've usually decided against it because I thought the process was too overwhelming. This week's article in the Signpost convinced me to give it a try anyway, but I'd like a mentor to help me get used to it. Would you be willing to show me the ropes? -Mabeenot (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have you on board! Yes I would be happy to help you. Are you looking for some up front advice, or feedback while you get stuck in? If you don't feel ready to take on a full review of an article at WP:GAN, you could pick any article and do a mock review in our userspace. Let me know what suits, Skomorokh 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try in my userspace and then let you look over it before I add it to a GAN. Thanks! -Mabeenot (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up a GA review for David Icke at my sandbox. Please take a look. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sure picked a live one! Will review it this evening, time permitting. Cheers, Skomorokh 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely a live one (and more importantly, it's one of the oldest nominations from the GAN backlog). I look forward to your advice. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protip

I was going for Ireland, as in the island, not Republic of Ireland, although I'd imagine most might have read it as the latter. But if all the groups are specifically from Northern Ireland -- I honestly don't know the ins and outs of the story -- that's certainly better. -- tariqabjotu 10:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems logical to most people that the class of things from "Northern Ireland" is a subset of those from "Ireland", which in turn should be termed "Irish", but to a native this can have the effect of causing needless antagonism and disrespect, akin to describing a Palestinian living in Jerusalem as Israeli. Hope that helps, Skomorokh 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic tugs, gaps, and holes in the Wikipedia tapestry

I threw up some nonsense on immediacy (philosophy), religious values and social amnesia. Perhaps you'd better have a look? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you mean me to look as an editor or an administrator, but although they look like admirable attempts at workable stubs, the topic areas are not within my sphere of competence so I am not sure that I can be of much help. Regards, Skomorokh 22:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Thanks for the revert... Apparently, you think that 1/2 of an equation is equal to and sufficient to yield an answer. Undoubtedly, that works in a less-is-more world... I think it also misleads people and your advocacy of "just the facts" is really an advocacy of "just the facts - 1". I do not think that leaving out the implications and inferences of a philosophy = "just the facts." In truth and language, the opening summary of the Ayn Rand article has value judgments and Point-of-view advocacy which should be balanced rather than tilted to one side... and seriously misleads anyone with an open mind by leaving one half of the articulation of her beliefs enunciated, while the other half of the articulation of her beliefs is kept silent... I don't believe that suppression is the answer, but maybe you do...Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this has to with the two additions you made in pursuit of clarity at the Ayn Rand article. The first added an inappropriate level of detail (noting the place of first publication tells the reader nothing about the content of the philosophy), while the second introduced blatant bias. Now I'll let you get back to whatever word-soup-free-association vibe you've got going here; if you want to follow up, the article talkpage is that way. Skomorokh 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sierra index

I'm currently creating an index of archived articles related to the Katie Sierra controversy. Please feel free to peruse it at your convenience. I would like to eventually contribute to the article myself and drive it to FA status, which I see is on your list of 'things-to-do'. --Cast (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in. Do you need me to contribute anything or just browse through and add to the article when I come across something useful?
When the article ran into sourcing trouble back in the mists of its last turn at GAN, the kindly reviewer sent me dozens if not hundreds of news stories by email. By the looks of things, your index is covering a lot of the same ground (but perhaps not all of it), so if you like I can forward you the emails (just send me an address).
In light of the copyright issue, some officious ~~asshole~~administrator is likely to come along and nuke your hard work. Have you got a backup for it, or would you like me to nominate you for some x-ray goggles? Skomorokh 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure that the copyright concerns you raise are a real issue here. Safely tucked away in my sandbox, they are simply there as a checklist, to be deleted when no longer needed. I've sent you my email, and will update my 'pedia account to reflect it. Feel free to contact me via it in the future. And please do contribute to the article itself, in whatever way you deem possible. I have too much on my plate at the moment, and I'm trying to whittle down the list. I'd appreciate whatever help I can get. And regarding admin status... well, I don't know. Follow your heart? --Cast (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Keefe

Hi. Caught your huffing of Dan O'Keefe (writer) which was huffed hours before the template time was up. Since I created and worked on the page, shouldn't I have been notified of the recent developments on the page, the deletion discussion (and where was the discussion?). The page does need work and references, but O'Keefe, imho, is an important figure in the creation of a recently popular holiday, and deserves his own page. Please help with the page if you can spare some time. Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An idea. Why don't "we" make the page about the son, Dan O'Keefe (screewriter), and fold the father's data into there as well. That way the son, who publicized Festivus, would get his deserved page as well. Thoughts? And thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Huffed"? Skomorokh 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Rogues

Any opinions on my recent changes to the rogues page? This page was not originally intended to become the cited quasi-policy it has recently become, and never really went through a discussion process to become anything beyond an essay. Should it remain a minor essay, or progress to a task force guideline?--Cast (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, support as guideline. Skomorokh 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chloë Sevigny

Hey Skomorokh. I am trying to help clear out the arts-related GAN backlog, and in looking over the nomination for Chloë Sevigny, it appears you had failed it less than a month ago and that it is now back. I haven't looked in depth, but based on a glance at the history, it appears the nominator has made changes based on your past suggestions, not simply renominated it without doing any more work. I was wondering if perhaps you'd like to review it again? I could do so, of course, but since you did the detailed first review, and identified the article's shortcomings then, you'd probably be the best qualified to review it a second time. Let me know either way. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hunter. I failed the article originally due to doubts about the reliability of the sourcing and the fact that the review was dragging on for quite some time. I suggested to the primary contributor that they renominate once they were happy with the article, as I thought it could use a fresh pair of eyes. Regards, Skomorokh 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Ninja

Someone is trying to delete the Jacksonville Ninja page again. I thought this was already settled once. It also seems like this only came up because I mentioned this page when defending the Thomas Bruso page I'd created. I could use your help if so inclined. Thanks. MaxMercy (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

You closed the {{afd}} for Suspect guest house, Jalalabad. Could you please userify it to User:Geo Swan/review/Suspect guest house, Jalalabad? I'd appreciate the userification of the full revision history and talk page please.

I'll put a {{noindex}} on it, and comment out the categories.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, would you prefer I make this request for userification elsewhere? Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soren Kierkegaard

Hi Skomorokh! I was looking through the Philosophy WP page for active editors, and you seem to be one of the few :) The article Soren Kierkegaard is at FAR, with the review page found here. This article has been hanging in review limbo for a while and needs a few good content expert-type eyes to look it over. Would you (or any of your TPW's who happen to be interested in the subject) be interested in taking a look? Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you made some contributions to the article during the FARC period of the review. My apologies for not noticing this before. It would be great if you could revisit and indicate if you believe the article meets FA criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Andrew Lih

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Andrew Lih. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lih (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skomorokh, we've got a very... persistent anon IP (User:74.190.55.226 who has been edit-warring, POV pushing, and generally being a right pain in the rear over at Andrew Sullivan/Talk:Andrew Sullivan. He's been warned repeatedly, and it looks like he may need to be clue-by-foured. Would you be willing to help out?

Also, how did you get the custom graphic to show up when users edit your talk page? Inquiring minds want to know! TallNapoleon (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]