User talk:Skomorokh/陸

Thanks

Thanks for catching (Anna's?) vandalism on Anarchism. I must have missed it by a few seconds. -_-' Zazaban (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I missed the whole fracas over Anarchist International etc., which is a pity as I quite enjoy being denounced as "ochlarchical"! Skomorokh 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's nothing, I got my userpage personally vandalized by the AI! Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What honour! I must keep Zazaban watchlisted as attention from such an august body surely confers notability. Skomorokh 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Against the World

Skom...This is the entire intro. I need to play with it a little...add a bit here, delete a bit at the end. What is WikiPolicy about this kind of thing. I would, of course, reference it. It just seems so clean compared to the article. This would just replace the lead. The rest still needs a good demolition expert.____________

Howard Roark was a brilliant young architect whose integrity was as unyielding as the granite of the buildings he created. He had a single purpose: to build his kind of building by his own standard.

Peter Keating, unprincipled rival and parasite who climbed to an easy success by stealing and distorting Roarks' ideas, screamed at him: "Who are you to stand there pronouncing judgement? You, against the whole country!" Then he came to Roark, begging for help to save his fading career.

Gail Wyand, powerful publisher of a corrupt newspaper which pandered to the mob, delivered an ultimatum to Roark: "For the rest of your life you'll obey the will of the majority." Then, when Roark stood alone against the unleased fury of an enraged society, Wynand took his side.

Dominique Francon, exquisitely beautiful, delicate as a steel spring and as strong, passionately in love with Roark, told him: "I can't bear to see what they're doing to you. Give it up." Then she married his worst enemy.

Ellsworth Toohey, critic, sociologist and humanitarian, said: "Everthing that can't be ruled, must go." Then he set out to get rid of Roark.

Why did Roark have to fight such a desparate battle? Why is every great innovator hated and denounced? What does human greatness depend upon--and what destroys it? The Fountainhead answers these crucial questions.

The theme of this sensational bestseller--which has generated such furious controversy--is that man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress. When you have read the book, ask yourself what you think. You may be shocked by your answer._______________.Let me know what you think----Buster7 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront

Thanks for the cleanup. I think it might just need a bit more wording tweaks to satisfy NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news; thanks for your work on the article – it was long one of the most egregious POV eyesores on the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think coming in not knowing anything about the subject matter is good for NPOV, at least. Too many clouded judgements can make your POV seem NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started editing the article from exactly that perspective a few months back. It's scary the degree to which mainstream Western POV gets a free pass on controversial subjects.Skomorokh 18:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nice work on the article - it looks halfway acceptable now. It really annoys me when UNDUE is used as justification of POV-pushing on articles in the minority viewpoint. And it's really concerning when an arbitrator's edit summary calls something a "whitewash". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:randroid?

I just noticed this revert, and I'm curious to know why Template:randroid is preferable to Template:WikiProject Objectivism, since the first just seems to redirect to the second. Just wondering--no big deal. Thanks.Yilloslime (t) 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the assessment system and am just trying to keep things tidy as I am almost finished with it. No big deal. Regards, Skomorokh 00:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, I am aware of the FA Team. I would just join them and be done with it, but I feel their whole process seems like an awful lot of trouble to get an article to FA.--LAA Fan 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha...have you tried getting an article to FA before? "An awful lot of trouble" about covers it! Perhaps a looser approach might yield success though; I wish you the best with your project. If I were to make a recommendation; it could help a lot to have an editor who has written an FA already involved. Regards, Skomorokh 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salon Mazal

Yes, it's much better now. Feel free to copy it into the mainspace, and I'll delete the user space one. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it, so as to preserve the revision history. Thanks for your time, Skomorokh 14:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RATM feedback

Check Talk:Rage Against the Machine discography#Featured list for my feedback should you so wish. Bear in mind that if I'm complaining about any prose, it's probably my own original text, so there's a degree of solipsism going down. Or something. Seegoon (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the response. Sincerely, Skomorokh 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis

Just so you know, some nazis are posting on anarchism.net in response to your edits on Stormfront. They seem rather pissed. Zazaban (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up; this is what I get for trying to remove anti-Nazi bias from the article :) Skomorokh 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lev Chernyi GA review

I always watch GA review subpages so future correspondence can go there :) I don't think I've got any more comments. Gary King (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I was hoping that was the case. Skomorokh 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... except for the one I just posted there of course. Gary King (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Chernyi

I saw that the article just got passed. Wow. That was the fastest review I've ever seen.

Congratulations. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; as you might appreciate, I'm not complaining! Regards, Skomorokh 02:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joi Ito - removal of content

Please see the discussion section of the Joi Ito article. --SasiSasi (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Skomorokh 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore Repent!

On 14 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Therefore Repent!, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia removal

There are no sources suggesting that Somalia is anarcho-capitalist so I removed it. There are sources showing that Somalia is anarchist though.72.94.48.81 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I contend that the Tabarrok reference (currently number 5) verifies that Anarchy in Somalia is an article that would be of interest to readers looking for information related to anarcho-captialism. What do you think? Skomorokh 14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contracts

to demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst Lenerd (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might well be, but this is an encyclopedia, not a political pamphlet, and we don't take sides on such issues. Skomorokh 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in Cuba

Hey, I don't know how much time or interest you have, but I just spotted an interview with the MLC here that could be useful in updating this article, as well as the one for the MLC. Sorry I don't have time for it myself. Hope you're well, Murderbike (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I am stateless at the moment, but once I settle for a few days I'll try and work it in. Hope the grass is still greener on your side of the "log out" button! Ciao, Skomorokh 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for the Deaf and Mark Lanegan discography

Yeah, it seems I finally got Peanut4's point about the breadth of coverage and now can kind of see a way forward for the article. And the Mark Lanegan discography getting featured was pretty great; despite his earlier problems, User:Be Black Hole Sun is good at this list thing. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibson

Welcome. I actually moved closer the parameters of the refs to avoid long browsing. You formatted it this way:

|title=

|url=

|date=

Its a waste of space, for me. So what I did, for other's convenience in editing, is this:

|title= |url= |date=

Regarding the characters, I did not remove any. Only the spaces. I'll continue my "FA maintenance" tomorrow if I can still spot some minor fixes. Good night (in Philippine time). BTW, congrats and good luck for tom's Main Page! --Efe (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salamat, on all accounts! Regards, Skomorokh

=) --Efe (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the Serial commas in to avoid ambiguity, thank you. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense"? "Significant"?

It's bad form to call a fellow editor's edits "nonsense", when the edit in question was not close to being "nonsense." Your edit summary at the Pig empire redirect is completely and totally unacceptable. Additionally, you claim the term is "significant." If this is so, why does it not appear in the target article (American empire), or even the page you cite in your edit summary (Abbie Hoffman), even one time? If there is no sufficient answer to this question provided, I will be asking that the page be deleted, and salted. If the term is actually significant, perhaps you could work towards including it in at least one of the two articles I mentioned and/or writing an article relating to the term itself. One way or the other, do not refer to my edits as "nonsense" any more. S. Dean Jameson 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I called your edit nonsense because, wait for it, it was nonsense. I initially came across the page and [proposed it for deletion, seeing it was the first edit by an indefinitely blocked user who clearly held hostile opinions of the United States, cited as vandalism by the blocking admin and negative in tone. After reading User:Lenerd's explanation in the blocking review, I realised my research had been insufficient, that the term was not simply the pov-creation of a disruptive user but rather one coined by a highly notable figure, Abbie Hoffmann. and referenced in reliable sources independent of the subject (cf. Harris, Randy (1993). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019509834X., Dorff, Elliot (2008). Jewish Choices, Jewish Voices: Money. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0827608616., Mcdonogh, Gary (2001). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415161614., among others) and thus a legitimate alternative name for the redirect target. Redirects are cheap, and alternative names are entirely appropriate candidates for redirects, provided that they are plausible search terms. The 33 people who visited the redirect in the six months following November 2007 certainly seemed to think so. Moving on to the nonsensical quotient of this comment, anyone who has read a few Wikipedia articles will realise. of their own accord and without prompting, that there is no necessary causal relation between a topical element's significance and its inclusion in Wikipedia. After spending a little more time reading, one will come to the conclusion that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and therefore the notion of relying on them to reliably gauge significance is...nonsense. A master of the English language and logical reasoning might even come to the wild conclusion that stating something to be significant does not logically commit the speaker to writing about it on the Internet. I would appreciate it if you restricted your future comments on this and other matters to the domain of sense; if you feel compelled to do otherwise, please excuse me if I remove or ignore your comments, as I value my time and attention. Regards, Skomorokh 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks are duly noted. On this project, we have a specific definition of what constitutes "nonsense". My edits clearly were not nonsense. I'm attempting to not respond to incivility with the same, but you must understand that the edit I made was not nonsense, and the fact that the article that the redirect phrase points to isn't mentioned anywhere on the project in any capacity does bear on the discussion. I'll be nominating it for speedy deletion shortly. S. Dean Jameson 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will not demur if I point out that the alternate definitions of the term "nonsense" precede the creation of Wikipedia. To suggest that the meaning of my words is defined by Wikipedia is...nonsense. If I were referring to WP:NONSENSE, I would have linked to it; it's clear from my comments that I was not —which, combined with your complete lack of a response to my arguments concerning the merits of the redirect gives the impression that you are back-pedalling furiously to save face . Taking something I say and contradicting it without argument is not the most productive way of developing consensus. I look forward with sympathy to the your intended effort to portray Pig Empire as an implausible typo, cross-namespace redirect or redirect to a non-existent page etc.. Regards, Skomorokh 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, here's the link to the RfD discussion I've opened about this redirect. S. Dean Jameson 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy appreciated, thanks. Glad to see you opted for RfD in the end. I'll join you in the discussion, where I hope we can reach consensus. Regards, Skomorokh 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of redirecting it to Abbie Hoffman, as that's who coined this rather obscure phrase, and it doesn't seem to be a widely-used term for America? S. Dean Jameson 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant question is: what is someone who searches for "Pig Empire" looking for? Examining the third party references, none of them fail to mention Hoffmann, so few of the searchers wouldn't know the association. Therefore, if they were looking for info on Hoffmann, they would search for "Abbie Hoffman". Much more likely is that they are looking for info on the "empire" in question. If the choices were between United States and Abbie Hoffmann, I would probably agree with you that the latter would be more appropriate, but we do have an article on the "empire": American Empire. I appreciate the suggestion, though. Regards, Skomorokh 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I wasn't more explicit. In the RfD, I think I was. What I'm actually proposing is a sourced section on the phrase "Pig Empire" within the Hoffman article, to which the Pig Empire page would then be redirected. This would satisfy both your concern (accuracy of the redirect), and my concerns regarding #3 and #7 as well. S. Dean Jameson 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll continue this at the RfD, thanks. Skomorokh 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we were able to work this out amicably. Pending the approval of the two other participating editors at the RfD, perhaps we can close it, and remove the tag from the redirect. Thanks for being flexible. Best, S. Dean Jameson 20:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been bold and removed the RfD template from the page and added a note. Thank you for pro-actively working towards a solution in the articlespace instead of warring over this minute dispute like most editors seem to. Regards, Skomorokh 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I usually try to hold myself to 1RR, in order to avoid serious editing conflict and to try to work toward resolutions. It doesn't always work, but fortunately this time it did. S. Dean Jameson 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A commendable principle. Ciao, Skomorokh 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your assistance

I noticed at the top of your talkpage that you have done FA/GA work. I am doing major overhauls on two articles that I think are important, and were woefully neglected, Royal Gorge and John McGraw. I've already made significant changes, but there's a lot of work left to do before a FA nomination. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any help I can get. S. Dean Jameson 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no experience with either geography or sports article, and my article-building attentions are directed elsewhere, but I will try and give some pointers.

The Royal Gorge article, though well-illustrated, is quite a way short of GA status. The three sections are promising starts towards meeting the "breadth" criteria, but the natural history section will need to be expanded to at least another paragraph, and surely there is more to say about the modern history. Obviously the lede will need to be expanded to roughly the size of the average section, summarizing the article; this is not too difficult. Neutral tone is generally ok, except where it gets promotional in the modern history section: "very popular activity", "Tourists travel from around the world to tackle the...and enjoy the...". As I mentioned, the images are excellent and free, although the placement is somewhat erratic; it might not be such a loss to cut one so as not to disturb the layout of the prose. Stability and edit-warring are not issues. The main issue is the almost complete lack of references. With GA, all contestable statements need to be referenced to reliable sources. It shouldn't be difficult to find these, although building the article with them would be a chore. It will run into more formidable difficulties at WP:FAC, due to lack of comprehensiveness and the strenuous demands of quality of writing there. If you haven't worked on a GA before, I'd definitely recommend this as an article to start with.

As for John McGraw, that article is clearly of more advanced quality, and has a lot of promise. Again, no significant issues with stability. However, the article includes a non-free image, Image:John-mcgraw-baseball.jpg, when you already have several free images of the subject; this is completely unacceptable w.r.t. our fair use guidelines. From a WP:MOS point of view, the relevance of the see also entries need to be explained with prose, the external links must be properly formatted per WP:EL, links to individual dates ought to be removed, inappropriate capitalisation in the infobox needs to be checked (Player, Manager), and first mentions of subjects in sections should not be pronouns ("He made his major league debut in...") The early life section is a good start, but its sentences are quite abrupt, and could be combined into longer ones for a more natural flow of prose. The melodramatic tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia ("It was often a struggle simply to"..."Tragedy struck the family"..."The devastated family"..."understandably bitter"..."He quickly became the best (though not the largest, by a far sight!) player on his school team"..."his tremendous accomplishments" etc.). Removing colourful language runs the risk of dulling the prose, but if McGraw was such a notable figure, there is surely plenty of verifiable, informative and entertaining commentary on him that could be incorporated as quotes. Again, the article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of reaching GA or FA without being consistently and thoroughly referenced; an article this length would require several dozen refs. I think in time this could be a successful featured article candidate, but that is a whole lot of work. The best way to get an idea of how to develop the article is to compare it with featured articles on similar subjects, e.g. Moe Berg, J. R. Richard, Bill Russell.

I hope this helps, and while I won't be editing the articles directly, feel free to ask if there's anything regarding working towards GA/FA that you're wondering about. Regards, Skomorokh 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I appreciate the input, and if you know of any of your FA/GA collaborators that are looking for a project to help with, please mention these articles. With your permission, I will copy the above suggestions into my userspace, for easy reference. S. Dean Jameson 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem; I'm afraid I don't know any experienced content editors interested in these topics but you might try asking the WP:FA-TEAM or FACC. Regards, Skomorokh 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cavlan

Hmm.. I'm re-reading the debate over again and to me the consensus to delete is relatively clear to me. That being said, since there were only a few people that argued in the debate, I'll restore and relist it. More eyes will show which side has the more compelling argument more easily. Wizardman 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, thanks. Skomorokh 21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talkpage

I left you a message on my talkpage regarding your two "ever so pleasant" posts. Keeper ǀ 76 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Indeed. I apologise if you were offended, but my comments were entirely lighthearted. It seems like someone left their sense of humour at home from school today. Rest assured I will not darken your door in such fashion again. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't feel lighthearted. They usually end, in myspacey fashion, with a :-) if they are intended not to be read literally, but instead as jest. Moving on, Keeper ǀ 76 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smileys are rather a little myspacey for my taste, which is why I utilised the medium of the exclamation mark. A slap on the wrist to myself for trusting humour to be translated across languages and through text. In any event, it is your visitors that have grounds for offence (the template would obviously not hypothetically be used to addressed you, given our yellow bar). Moving on, Skomorokh 14:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting clearer, and thank you for taking the time to explain your reasonings, as you certainly didn't have to oblige my belligerence. I believe we are both victims of reading tone into prose that suits our predispositions. I also apologize for assuming the worst instead of merely asking you what you meant. Either way, pleased to meet you. I do still ask, in all sincerity, the reason for your visit to my talkpage? Was there an issue or thread that drew your attention or some way that I can be of assistance? Keeper ǀ 76 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this was bad, check out my snarkfest with S Dean Jameson above. The RfD in question was being discussed on your talkpage by Enigmaman among others. I was on my way out when I saw the "Suggestion" the latter posted, and noting the banterlike tone of the place and the unfortunate visual similarities of WP:AN/K, pitched in in a moment of frivolity. Pleased to meet you, Skomorokh 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Recent discussion at FACs has been that dates are not high value links. The people to talk to about this are User:Tony1 and User:SandyGeorgia who are most influential at FAC. Reference User_talk:Tony1/Archive_1#63341374241.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but as much respect as I have for Sandy et al., FAC does not have jurisdiction over FA's (except in the case of FAR), and this is really something that needs encyclopaedia-wide consensus. I have left the in-text datelinks out, but have restored the template, as I don't fancy having to update that section every March 17 for years to come. I recommend you take up your cause at WP:VP or the prominent datelink template pages if you want it to get traction. Regards, Skomorokh 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]