User talk:Skomorokh/參

Anarchism and wikipedia

Stop being a jerk, its not me its our readers who will not understand and I understand anarchy yes and if I dont understand your bad words listen to me. I suggest you explain on the talk page what you mean sdo we can portray it to our readers who are ignorant of anarchy, as our educational mandate demands. You are an experienced user and should know better than to defend material our readers will not understand. Your claimning that cos I allegedly don't understand anarchy well is is appalling, we are here to help the uneducated not the educated, specifically not the anarchist topic educated. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to...you know...let me know what on earth you are talking about? Thanks, Skomorokh 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, as one of the more active members of the Anarchism taskforce, I edit dozens of anarchism-related articles daily; you're going to need to be more specific if I am going to be able to assist you. Regards, Skomorokh 13:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Closure

Hey I noticed your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African pope. Note that you should have have performed the merge you should have left it alone, as the result wasn't keep, it was merge, and there's absolutly no need to discuss on the talk page, all possible regulars of the article were aware of the AFD because of the notice. In future please either perform merges or leave the AFD, now if you have no objection I will go ahead and merge.--Phoenix -wiki 11:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD as I'm sure you are aware stands for articles for deletion - the only question of overriding importance is whether or not there is consensus to delete. In this instance, there was not, so the article was kept by default. You had editors (not including BPMullins who later endorsed Dhartung's endeavour and called for a speedy close) out of twelve supporting a merge to Pope, all with brief rationales, and six supporting keeping the article (under the original title or a new one), who discussed the various possibilities and engaged with the issues more than those who preferred to merge. There was also an editor suggesting conversion into a dab page, which some respondents were sympathetic to and some were opposed. None of those preferring the merge option made any attempt to engage in dialogue with the other editors. So if you think that constitutes consensus then I am afraid your understanding of consensus is sadly lacking. Even if there was obvious, snowball consensus to merge, it would not have been a good idea for me to perform the merger, because my knowledge of the subject, and what weight the content should have in the target it article, is deficient compared to the editors of the article. And finally, aside from the bad etiquette of asking if someone has no objection to merging and then going ahead and doing it anyway without waiting for a response, BPMullins and Dhartung are trying to engage in discussion on the talkpage which you have ignored and implemented your preferred changes in spite of the Afd result. I recommend you revert your last edit to the article, engage the other editors, and take the AfD result to WP:DRV to have it overturned if you are convinced that my decision was in error. Regards, Skomorokh 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's

Oh, worry not, I am well aware of Murphy's, being of the Murphy clan of west Cork. I have to ask, though, had you been hitting the product before writing that article? It is really over-the-to, so to speak.

Oh, and, in regards to SqueakBox and his comments above, he is referring to the Post-left anarchy article, about which you and he, and then he and I, tangled yesterday. He does not like the word "current" in the lede. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect no less. Are you, yourself, Irish? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Y'know, it's funny to me, 'cause my cousin Mick Murphy, with whom I lived in west Cork many years ago, never touches the stuff. He wouldn't say why... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ami Perrin, 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.

--Royalbroil 16:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Katie Sierra

I searched online when I got on campus to find 67 stories from The Charleston Gazette (you already have cited a few, and some are letters to the editor and op-eds), a 2004 book titled Challenging U.S. beliefs, post-9/11 Homeland by Dale Maharidge, where Sierra was interviewed. I searched in the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Atlanta Consititution. I found one story of around 300 words in the Washington Times. I wish I could claim that $1,000, but what I'm probably going to do is ask for a second opinion from a more experienced GA reviewer on the issue of neutrality. It's not you, but if the only coverage of the story comes from a dubious Court TV source and more left-leaning publications, can the article be written neutrally? I need more input on this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a wise decision. I have the Maharidge book as further reading, but I will try and expand its use as a source; the Washington Times article would be useful if you could email it to me; the Gazette stories I have been able to use are those archived by Infoshop.org, an anarchist resource, so if you could tell me how you managed to access 67 stories, it would be a huge help. Thank you so much your above-the-call-of-duty commitment to this review. Regards, Skomorokh 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got hold of the Charleston Gazette stories because I have academic access to LexisNexis and it hooks me right up. It's great, actually. I'll send you the story from the Washington Times. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, seems like it's an American-only resource, pity. Thanks in advance for the article. Skomorokh 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the bombardment. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm going to stop for now. If you still have holes in the story, let me know. As a result of this, I'll probably have to recuse myself from reviewing the article further. --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help, and do not apologize for the bombardment as I shall thoroughly enjoy rewriting the article this week. I think I will put the nomination on hold while the rewrite is ongoing and the move to Katie Sierra suspension controversy is still being ironed out. Once again, a thousand thanks!Skomorokh 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Böröcz

I agree, but the article 1) had zero sources, which are absolutely required for BLP articles, and 2) was more about his family than what he's actually notable for. It can be recreated, sure, but only with sourcing and information. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for John_Emilius_Fauquier change

Do you have the text for that source? If you do, can you post an excerpt for that on the talk page? I don't have any other source that suggests the same thing as your source and I would be intrigued if it were true. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Google Books; three or four lines (which I referenced) and then a long quote from Fauquier (which I did not). link. It's on page 88. Regards, Skomorokh 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't think to look on google, even though that's where most of my direct book references came from. That's a neat piece of info. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. Fingers crossed the article survives AfD. Skomorokh 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the ACLU

After a series of acts of vandalism to this article, all of which had very similar edit summaries (all caps, exclamation points, hysterical antisemitism, etc.), I decided to do some research, and have come up with some information I think might be useful. At this point, though, I am not sure what to do with it. I do not believe that this is a sock-puppet situation, necessarily, and if it is, I know not who the culprit might be. There are three different IP ranges involved, but the editing patterns of all three are so similar I refuse to believe it can be coincidence. The pattern of vandalism, of POV-pushing, and other violations makes this a cause for concern, I simply do not know to whom I should take this information. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my backyard by any stretch of the imagination, but WP:SSP is the first port of call if any socking is afoot. Are there any pov-warriors of the article who have been blocked? If so, the IP's you observe could be evading the block, which itself merits a blocking, if my grasp of policy is accurate. Have you tried checking the WHOIS info on the IP ranges? If they are from the same geographical area, it is probably the same person, or meatpuppets. The only way I know of of determining a user's IP is through checkuser. But if you're not interesting in pursuing the sock angle, and IP's are vandalising the article (not just good faith-bad temper inserting pov), then a semi-protection of the article will put a swift end to that (request at WP:RFPP). If you need advice from someone who actually knows what they are talking about, you could try emailing User:Alison or User:Thatcher, or asking at WP:AN. Sorry for the acronym soup! Skomorokh 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I appreciate the information. I did check the WHOIS, and two of the three ranges are from Virginia, but the third is in Utah (a bit strange), but the articles being edited are the same, and the edit style is identical. Some of the different IPs have been blocked for varying periods of time, but to little avail. As I say, I have not been able to pinpoint a registered user I think to be behind this... I wish that I could. Again, thank. I have had some dealings w/ Alison in the past, so I think I will take this to her. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I wonder do the Utah edits cluster around a specific time period – weekends, holidays, before or after the Virginia? If there was a pattern it could indicate it is the same person. Anyway, one option is to dole out {{uw-longterm}}s to each of the IP's next time they step out of line, that should earn them prolonged blocks. Best of luck with it, Skomorokh 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Articles should not be semi protected for content disputes and edit warring; doing so sides with registered editors. The protection policy only provides for full protection when there is an edit war. There was clearly an edit war. Therefore, I updated the protection to comply with the policy. The protection expires tomorrow; if the disputes have been resolved, there will be no need for protection. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite news template

Thanks for the fix... do you know why {{cite news}} doesn't automatically italicize the publisher? I remember that in the past, this was the case. Do we need to be italicizing the publisher attribute in every instance of the template? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite news includes |work= i.e. The New York Times and |publisher= i.e. The New York Times Company. So the template is right and the article is technically wrong; the magazines were added to |publisher= instead of |work=; I just quick fixed the italics. Skomorokh 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I haven't seen that kind of specification with the publishers and their works. So would Variety be the work and Reed Business Information be the publisher? What about websites where this may not be clear? Seems like I have a lot of backtracking to do... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, especially with websites. WP:FAC are very particular about that; I've seen websites shot down as RS because they didn't have a publisher. It's all in the template documentation if you're worried. Skomorokh 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the transformation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your query, Dr. Giroux's statements will be part of a "Critical analysis" section or sub-article as seen here. The "Critical reaction" section has more to do with contemporary reviews by professional film critics, where assessments by people like Dr. Giroux go beyond that. It's not easy to write out the critical analysis, though, due to the very cerebral writing in most of the pieces. As for Zerzan, you can see the talk page for an explanation of this. Zerzan only mentions Fight Club in passing at the end of a large passage, so it did not seem very consequential compared to other coverage of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I thought as much when I saw your sandbox. Give me about 20 minutes more and I'll have the references beaten into a somewhat consistent shape. Skomorokh 04:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I appreciate your help on this. I may have to take this new approach slowly... there's way too many templates I've filled out the old way. Not that it becomes unreadable, but perhaps I could go back to the Good Articles I've done to address this better. I need to turn in (long day tomorrow), but let me know if you have any further suggestions about filling out these templates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, it's only required for "professional quality" articles, not GA's, but I think this article can easily go all the way to FA. I know I screwed up a half a dozen references in the article, but some general ground rules are: If it's an online publication, i.e. a blog, Slate (magazine), CNN.com, use {{cite web}}; if its a daily newspaper, use {{cite news}}; and if its a print magazine or weekly newspaper, use {{cite journal}}. It's especially important to use cite journal when you don't have a full date (day/month/year), as it screws up the references to have "|date=Aug. 1999". If you do have a full date, always wikilink it like so [[2008-04-30]], so that readers will see April 30, 2008 (or their preferred style instead of 2008-04-30. [[tl|cite interview}} is also useful if your source is a problematic podcast or video. Always include the publication and the publisher – if the source does not seem to have a separate publisher, it's probably self-published, which in most cases means it's an unreliable source (exceptions are notable blogs or websites of notable individuals). That's all that comes to mind for now, but don't take my word for it; check the documentation before going on a rewriting spree! Night, Skomorokh 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate the fixes! I had another question -- what about the author= attribute as opposed to the first= and last= attributes? I have not been picky either way, though I think my small issue with first= and last= is that if I use coauthors=, it does not seem to read well. For example, it would say, Doe, John, Jane Doe. Is that normal to read or what? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure if I agree about the application of {{cite web}}. The documentation indicates that it is for non-news sources, and for film articles, I've used this template for box office information in particular. However, Slate.com and CNN.com still qualify as news reporting, which is why I've used {{cite news}} with them (there is a URL atttribute in it, after all). What's your take on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use first, last and authorlink wherever possible; academic referencing styles (MLA, Chicago, Turabian, APA) generally prefer "Surname, Firstname). On coauthors I usually cheat and enter it "coauthors=Doe, Jane" so it doesn't turn out weird - I am not certain of the correct style to handle this though. I never use "|author=" unless the writer is Bono or Madonna or something. You can go either way on online news; the inputs will be the same and the only output difference is the where the date features and whether or not the title is in quotes (which you can specify by "|quotes=no" anyway). I find it mentally easier to categorize things as dead tree media or online, but thinking about it again technically you are correct on using using {{cite news}} giving dating conventions. Skomorokh 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Skomorokh...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were an award for least obnoxious thankspam, I do believe you would get it. Best of luck next time round, and don't give up on article improvement – it's what we are all fundamentally here for. Skomorokh 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh...I don't think that there is a barnstar to cover it.

- LA @ 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spunk Library, 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.

--Royal broil 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Spunk Library, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Internet. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Benatar AfD

Yep, close away. It's pretty obvious that there's notability now. I'll post acomment to this effect on the AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sierra

If you can, please revert the "bold move" of Katie Sierra. It was inappropriate for it to be moved when the RM had only been open for one day. It is highly odd that the person who opened the RM didn't just move it without opening an RM, and then apparently got miffed that there was opposition to the proposed move, and just moved it, awkwardly and in an incomplete manner. Do you know anything about the User katiesierra? I have left a notice about the need for identification or the username being subject to being blocked. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I opened the RM because I created the article but other users thought the way I wrote it might not be neutral, so I didn't want to give anyone reason to think I had a conflict of interest. User:Swatjester performed the bold and incomplete move. I can reverse the move, but I don't like reverting users unless it's an exceptional case. I'm afraid I don't know anything about User:Katiesierra. Regards, Skomorokh 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

So far, you've raised one reasonable objection, and I believe I've answered it. You've also made two changes that I cannot agree with; you re-bloated the second paragraph and you re-added the use of "philosopher" to the first, so I had to undo those. I'm asking that you restore the first two paragraphs so that they follow the consensus. I'd rather we both accept the compromise than give into Ethan's endless edit war.

P.S. Please respond here, not on my talk page, since my IP changes without warning.

- Bert 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bert, you are going to need to be a little more specific about which of my edits you are referring to. Which is my "one reasonable objection"? I believe it was Ethan who restored the adjectives to the second paragraphs with this edit; my next edit simply improved the referencing style and removed the unintentional doubling of paragraph 2. There is absolutely no consensus on the talkpage, merely proposals, and edit-warring is not constructive. I would ask you to lead by example and stop reverting; as an observation, not a judgement, I'd say pushing through one's preferred version rarely results in long-term stability, but rather fuels further acrimony. Please let me know if I make and errors in specific edits. Thanks, Skomorokh 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable objection, which you made on the talk page, is that I removed the reference in the first paragraph. If I remember correctly, you added to her list of professions and restored that reference, and I consider this a very bad idea precisely because it violates the compromise of calling her an novelist or writer who made a philosophy without getting caught up on the controversial issue of whether she's a philosopher, or what sort she is. So long as this is not fixed, the first paragraph will not be stable, and I expect others to join in until we have a full-fledged edit war.

While no consensus can include everyone (particularly Ethan), the first paragraph that I inserted is supported by three people so far, and I strongly suspect that both Readings and that night-owl anon editor would support it as well. I'd call that a consensus and I urge you to join it so as to end Ethan's war. For the record, I would personally prefer that it say writer, not novelist, but that's a compromise I'm willing to make. I'm not willing to call her a philosopher except with qualifications -- non-academic, amateur, incompetent -- that are not likely to be accepted by her fans. Likewise, Edward is right about the excess of adjectives int he second paragraph.

I'm done editing the article for today, but I'm concerned that the other supporters of this consensus might not be, and Ethan will drag in all of his yes men Randians to bolster his view. This will lead to the article being protected again, which is not good for anyone. - Bert 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't called on a single other "Yes man" to participate in the debate. I'm making my points myself. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan, I've looked at your history and I know exactly what you are. - Bert 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not on my talkpage, please gentlemen. Skomorokh 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]