User talk:Skomorokh/Ա

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Hi: I am prepared for more fun. I tackled all of the nitpicking issues with the prose and would appreciate it if you could take a new look at the article. I'm going to go watch Lost now but will check back in in three hours or so. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, didn't notice you had finished (or that Lost had returned!). I'll have to take a look at the recent changes and see how the article is shaping up now; it will be a day or two I'm afraid. Regards, Skomorokh 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Agorism wiki

Template:Agorism wiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, a triumph of ignorance over vision. Skomorokh 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Manichaean paranoia

Hi! I've nominated the article Manichaean paranoia for deletion because I deem that it is not notable and cannot become notable, because of the inherent contradiction in this political phrase. I'm giving you a notice on this because you have contributed to the article and I deem you have rights to have a say in the matter. My elaborate analysis of the failures of the article can be read in Talk:Manichaean paranoia. The discussion for (and against) deletion is kept in this page (WP:AfD/Manichaean paranoia (2nd nomination). Be welcome to partake! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With such an interesting and entertaining invitation, I feel confident in trusting you with the fate of the article! Regards, Skomorokh 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAT Image

Hey Skomorokh, thanks for the heads up on another in the long list of inexplicable policies. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if no-one did, we would all be lost in the labyrinth. Ciao, Skomorokh 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adi

hi Skomorokh. I'm Adi theAnimal Mad boy and wanna ask something. If I want to talk to you how do I do that? answer a.s.a.p. please.

Yo Adi, replied at your talk page. Skomorokh 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Modern Timber Homes

A tag has been placed on Modern Timber Homes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries when removing speedy deletion tags are usual

Frankly I thought you just removed the by accident since you made no comment at all about them in your edit summaries. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit summary "+ref, not irredeemable" was directed at the tag - I meant that I did not think the article was necessarily unencyclopaedic, and with time could be inclusion-worthy. I could have been more explicit, but I didn't anticipate the speedy re-tagging. Hope this clears things up a little, and thanks for the comment. Regards, Skomorokh 20:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We misunderstood each other. No-one died :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

Hi Skomorokh; I probably won't be getting back to Stormfront (website) any time soon - Letting you know so my absence doesn't impede the page's development. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Tom, no worries about the article; I haven't much time or appetite to devote to it myself right now. Happy editing, Skomorokh 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RBI

Is pretty standard in these cases. This abusive user has by my count at least 15 sock accounts not yet blocked. Do not enable his ban evasion, which is what you seem to be doing. With your help he could edit every day, and that's just not on.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work the article through GA and FA, the edits in question were in response to concerns raised at FAC. I know you are following the standard operating procedure in these cases, but it's detrimental to the encyclopaedia. You are placing more importance on Wikipedia as a social entity than an informational resource. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No im not. That user has for years littered the encyclopedia with inside jokes, made up stories, and general crap. You really shouldn't be encouraging him; in fact, you should be embarressed to be enabling him. I also didn't appreciate your petulant edit summaries.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conduct of that account is a matter for checkusers, administrators and so forth to judge; its edits to the Is Google Making Us Stupid? are a matter for editors interested in and knowledgeable of the topic to judge. You are not among the former, and if you are not interested in becoming one of the latter, I suggest you find a more productive use for your time. Skomorokh 14:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bad Wolf (film)

Please do not add which is clearly nonsense and not even supported by a ref to articles, as you did [1] with the "0% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes" to Big Bad Wolf (film). Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "clearly nonsense" exactly? The edit you identify consists of adding two referenced claims; are you confused? Skomorokh 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a "0% fresh rating" is clearly nonsense. 0% means no rating at all. At the link you added gives N/A. No, I am not confused! Str1977 ^(talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what you are talking about; 0% does not mean "no rating at all", it means that the film has had no positive reviews. See the Rotten Tomatoes FAQ to learn more. Nor is adding a "0% fresh rating" "clearly nonsense" - it is perfectly intelligible and coherent. I added the reference on September 12 of last year, so I am not sure why you are raising the current state of the rating. Is your problem that the material added is lacking in sense or in accuracy? I am sorry to ask, but your English leaves a lot to the imagination. Regards, Skomorokh 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have no intention bothering you further if all you think you need to cover up your mistake by insults. A 0% rating, regardless of how it came to pass, is not a "fresh" rating. And a page giving no reviews cannot be the reference for anything, including the film being "critically unsuccessful". There is no reason to add such a link. It happens to be a fact that the film has got no reviews on RT and I seriously doubt that all reviews (that nonetheless made up 0% when you added the link) have disappeared now. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, be sure to stop by again the next time you need a fucking reference updated. Adios, Skomorokh 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for this. My MOS and copyediting isn't the best and I was just about to go and look for someone to do that for me - I see you got in first. Must appreciated, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I was glad to help but it's closer to a compulsion! Cheers, Skomorokh 00:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Bundled Conductors

You did not give me time to write anything before you listed Aerial Bundled Conductors for deletion.

The lack of ABC caused bushfires that killed people, so it is actually a most worthwhile change.

Tabletop (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This, a single external link, was all that the article consisted of when I patrolled it. If you post a new page in the articlespace, it must meet Wikipedias criteria for inclusion, so that we do not end up with thousands of poor quality and unencyclopaedic articles. You will find that new articles are typically patrolled very quickly, so if you intend on posting incomplete articles in future, you might consider writing them in your userspace first (e.g. at User:Tabletop/New article) and then moving them to the mainspace, or tagging them with {{underconstruction}} to let other know you intend on writing a full article. I've removed the deletion tag from Aerial Bundled Conductors now that you have added text, and it should be safe from deletion in its current state, so let me know if I can be of any help with the development of the article. Sorry for the trouble, Skomorokh 05:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least I now know about the "Underconstruction" tag! Tabletop (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

You should be aware that Ayn Rand is being actively edited if you wish to participate.Kjaer (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG canvassing! But seriously, I have more productive ways of spending my time than arguing with zealous and willfully ignorant philosophical neophytes with petty grudges against dead women. It seems like so much fun. I'm still dedicated to improving Objectivism-related content elsewhere though,[2][3] so let me know if you want any help with any of the more placid articles. Regards, Skomorokh 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*snerk* - I love the edit summary you just used for removing onpedia. (And your above comment makes me wonder: Do you think one of these days, one of the warriors is going to let slip "And she wasn't even a good lay!"?) arimareiji (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand talked a good game, but one can't help but imagine she would be something of a cold fish. Skomorokh 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, she looks like a real firecracker to me... *tries unsuccessfully to keep a straight face*

But I was mainly implying that your description of "zealous and willfully ignorant philosophical neophytes with petty grudges against dead women" put me in mind of Branden (and possibly members of the coterie who never came forward). arimareiji (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your refacting of Kirill Lokshin's comment

Please do not refactor other users comments on any page. This is a violation of WP:TALK. Also, your talk page is messed up as it puts text beginning on the right rather than the left. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a bow, get off the stage. Your claim that my talk page is "messed up" is a violation of WP:TALK. You also missed an apostrophe, but I wouldn't dare refactor that. In other news, it's sunny outside, the birds are singing and you're leaving bitchy comments on the Internet. What gives, muchacho? Skomorokh 04:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making personal attacks against me?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're priceless! Bravo! Bravo! Skomorokh 04:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's annoying to read your talk page when it's right-aligned. I guess most posters would prefer to make left-aligned posts but don't know how to do it, or don't want to spend time fixing it, or notice after saving (it's left-aligned in preview) and don't bother fixing it afterwards. Is it deliberate that you have unclosed text-align: right; on the transcluded User:Skomorokh/Jardiniere? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Hi - I didn't understand the reversion you make here. You say that 'derive' is a success word. But if you read the passage, the claim is that Rand tried to derive her political views from basic metaphysical principles. True, she did try. But 'try' is a failure word, no? Peter Damian (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Yes, the success word "derive" was okay in the original sentence because of the "tried" qualifier, but the original sentence was inadequate (made it seem as if Obj. metaphysics and epistemology were invented in order to rationalise Rand's ideology). If I had written "Rand's political views derive from Objectivist metaphysical and logical foundations", I would be claiming she succeeded in this. Hence the revised wording. I don't think "try" connotes failure as much as "derive" does success, but I concede the point. The goal is to outline the foundational/systematic structure of Objectivist philosophy without expressing a POV as to whether or not it was successful; I'm not sure the current wording is the best way of doing that, but it's an improvement. Skomorokh 09:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't follow your logic. You argue that 'derive' somehow wins over 'try', but that makes no sense. 'Complete' is a success word. But 'tried to complete' (to use a different example) is a failure phrase. It strongly suggests failure to complete, and at best is neutral about the completion. 'Tried to get into Oxford' is another example. So I don't follow your logic at all. Objectivism seems to be an attempt to formalise the very sketchy reasoning that Rand uses in her narrative works. Peter Damian (talk)}~

I didn't argue that "derive" wins over "try", I wrote that both are problematic and that we could probably do better. Your account of Objectivism has chronological plausibility going for it, if little else. Can you think of a formulation that does not involve these success/failure words (and doesn't overuse the passive tense)? Skomorokh 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I don't think "try" connotes failure as much as "derive" does success". I don't understand this babble about success and failure words. The word 'try' is as neutral is you could get. On the classical liberal tradition, see my remarks on the Rand talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who raised the issue with "try"; I was simply agreeing with you on the point. I'll check the Rand talkpage for the classical liberalism point, thanks for the pointer. Regards, Skomorokh 10:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed burden of proof problem

I left the message below on some talk pages. The principle you invoke (that even if a scholar is considered a reliable source, he or she cannot be cited except as they put forward their view in published RS) would establish an important precedent and should receive wider attention. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available. Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey dont you

hey why dont *YOU* start the cleto reyes page since u dont like what i put

When you came over here, did you see a sign in front of my userpage saying Cleto Reyes promotion? You know why you didn't see that sign? 'Cause promoting Cleto Reyes ain't my fuckin' business! Skomorokh 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A-Space disambiguation

I'd be happy to do the deed, but which of the two articles should be the A-Space? ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community centre was the original entity, but the US military topic has broader scope and a larger Google footprint, so per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the latter should probably get the nudge. Thanks for helping! Skomorokh 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ... discospinster _talk 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for that. Skomorokh 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works of John Betjeman

Oops... and thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can understand your perspective. The intro that's there could use work, but there needs to be something before the list itself to answer the question "Works of John Betjemen - why should I care?" Regards, Skomorokh 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life sections in BLPs

How much information on a Living Person's personal life is acceptable in a BLP?

Even well referenced information can be intrusive and non-encyclopedic in tone, frankly I don't expect to read gossip in an encyclopedia.River sider (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is under discussion at the article talkpage; I suggest we continue it there so that others may contribute. Regards, Skomorokh 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Street newspapers

Thanks for your input at that article. I ended up just removing the whole "notable street papers" section, and left my rationale here. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misread at first but you are right that that section had issues; were it comprehensive, it would be out of place, and if it were not, there would be little point to it. I largely agree with your rationale at the talkpage; good luck with the article! Sincerely, Skomorokh 02:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi there, I have been working on Sunderland A.F.C. for quite some time. It failed its FAC not long ago mainly because of prose issues, these seem to have been resolved on the whole, but a problem over the usage of singular/plural still remains. Enough blabbering, the reason I come to ask is because I'd like to know if you'd copyedit it to standardise the refering to the club to plural. Peanut4 left a message here that might help you understan (if you wish to go through with the c/e of course). Anyway.... I'd like to get this over and done with and get it up at FAC again. :) Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly and the issue is restricted to singular/plural references; if so, this would be an WP:ENGVAR issue, and not being a native English speaker I have learned a mongrelised British/American English. So no promises I'll be able to achieve what you would like, but if you would still like me to copyedit, I'd be more than happy to help. Regards, 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you having a go would do any harm. I'd be very happy for you to go through and copyedit it. Cheers. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you certainly work quickly. :) Thanks for the copyedit and I don't imageine it'll be too long before seeing at FAC again. Cheers once again. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down the memory hole

Admin dearest, the history of Talk:The Moon is a Harsh Mistress seems to have gone astray. Can you take a look at the deleted revisions and see whether or not it can be restored? Vielen dank, Skomorokh 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, cut 'n' paste move. Skomorokh 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]