User talk:Skomorokh/devet

Your GA nomination of CrimethInc.

The article CrimethInc. you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:CrimethInc. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Pattern Recognition (novel). What would the article need for your support at an FAC? --maclean 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy of Prunus jamasakura

I removed your tag as it is not a G4 - at least not under that name even if capitalized. As for the merits of the article itself I leave that to the judgment of others. Agathoclea (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the matter has been dealt with appropriately. скоморохъ 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure

Hi, I noticed that you did a Non-admin closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics of decompilation. While there was nothing especially wrong with what you did, non-admin closure for AfD that result in delete is a bad idea. Since there has to be an admin doing the actual delete anyway, you have not saved anyone any work. I found the page from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but I still had to go to the AfD page to make sure it was a valid close as delete; it was just as many steps as it would have taken to close the AfD and delete the article. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page. Jon513 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course mistaken in your claim of unreduced workload, but I appreciate your sentiment. Regards, скоморохъ 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the warning to the little charmer who vandalized my userpage. I am glad that you are paying attention. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, we cannot tolerate the homosexual agenda being advanced where our children could be reading. скоморохъ 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly not! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Vacuum Coaters

Hi, I've restored the Society of Vacuum Coaters article. It isn't about a social club. The article was written by a new editor who seems to be an expert wikipedian who just hasn't learned all the ropes around here yet. I've wikified it a bit and requested at User talk:Don Mattox that he add more clarifying material. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll add a tag to warn off other speedy patrollers. скоморохъ 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gael-Taca

A press release and a newspaper story that mentions it in passing don't establish notability. You need multiple independent sources that discuss the subject directly. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to give editors working on contested deletions a respectful period in which to repair problematic articles, and at the very least engage in the discussion on the talkpage. Overriding consensus and prematurely nuking nascent articles is an unfortunate use of administrative tools. Regards, скоморохъ 23:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish I can copy this deleted material onto a user subpage User:Skomorokh/Gael-Taca draft and you can work on improving it and finding new sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much appreciated, thanks. Can you make it User:Skomorokh/Gael-Taca? скоморохъ 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, good luck! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Nasty nasty blunt for deletion

Hi, I recently nominated this article for deletion, but then noticed that you also did this a few days before me. It looks like an anonymous editor is removing the AFD tags. What should we do to take care of this situation? I just wanted to keep you in the loop. Thanks, Iepeulas (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. In one way, my prod was proposed more than 5 days ago so the article is eligible for deletion, but on the other hand some anon removed it before the five days were up. I think all we can do is caution the anon for removing tags and wait for someone to improve the article or for the 5 days to come up. If there's any trouble, we can simply take it to WP:Afd. What do you think? Regards, скоморохъ 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I politely warned the anon, I'll keep an eye on it, if someone removes the tag I'll tag it for AFD. Thanks, Iepeulas (talk)

In fact, anybody can remove a proposed deletion notice; it shouldn't be replaced, unless it is obvious that the user didn't do it to oppose the deletion. I have nominated the article for a regular deletion debate/vote. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative society

Not that you need anything else for you watchlist, but just take a gander at this article and tell me if you think it is worthy of rescuing. It has been on my watchlist for a while, but I forgot about it. At this point, it is a catchall for a whole lot of stuff that is already covered elsewhere and better. I am particularly amused by the "see also" list which is almost longer than the rest of the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fret, it's already under my watchful eye. I'm inclined to split with extreme prejudice to intentional community, underground culture, alternative lifestyle/culture, utopianism etc and replace with a disambiguation page. As it stands, the article has no single subject, just a vague sprawling mess. скоморохъ 05:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can think of no way to save it. It tries to cover everything, and does none of it well. I am more than happy to help with the pruning shears. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory pre-shear consultation. скоморохъ 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in Cuba

Hey, thanks for all the formatting help on this article. Mojitios all around! Murderbike (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, congrats to you on your first GA dude! Viva la revolucion скоморохъ 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient market hypothesis as pseudoscience

How is there a NPOV issue with identifying falsified hypotheses?

Treating the idea that the hypothesis is pseudoscience as fact without citing any reliable sources to support the claim is simply you expressing your point of view on the matter. The idea that the EMH is pseudoscience is not uncontroversial, so you need to find journal articles, books etc. that classify it as a pseudoscience. Please ask if there's anything else I can help you with. скоморохъ 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonerphonic

Well, I admit that I have stretched the speedy deletion criteria somewhat, as you can see from my justification in the deletion discussion/vote page. I don't think there's a way to ensure that such borderline (but clearly unencyclopedic) articles actually get speedily deleted, short of changing the policy; it just depends on how much deletionist the judging administrator is. (If I had not deleted it, somebody else would anyway within a day or two on the grounds of the snowball clause). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished...

I was checking external links in an article earlier this evening, and now I seem to have spyware on my computer. If I figure out where it came from, and who put up the external link, I am going to skin them. Fun times. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, are you using Internet Explorer or something??! I didn't know one could still inadvertently be infected without downloading any dodgy programs. Good luck with the hunt. скоморохъ 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm using Internet Exploiter... ya don't need to make me feel worse than I already do.... And the virus program found it but cannot seem to get rid of it. I keep saying I am going to switch to Linux, but I keep delaying. Now, I'm paying. Thanks for the encouragement. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I finally got my act together and switched to Firefox. So, this is what the internet is really like? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Paul

I'm pretty sure I didn't create the page Nathan Paul... so why did you warn me about it? --Rividian (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on talkpage. скоморохъ 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: [edit] A7 Speedy deletion nomination of Blake Whitney (S&S character)

My mistake - I thought it covered unremarkable fictional characters as well - is there not a speedy deletion criterion for those? Carom (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, seems like a bit of a gap in the criteria, although I suppose it isn't worth worrying about too much. Carom (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Studies

On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarchist Studies, 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) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you both. скоморохъ 05:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Time (Paul Feyerabend book)

On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Killing Time (Paul Feyerabend book), 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) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green anarchy

yeah, that's what i wanted to name it, but i saw that there was already a cat called "anarchy", so i didn't want to just replicate it, but i don't like that word, as it's so often conflated with the word "chaos", it's annoying. but in the end i changed it - hopefully the other one will get deleted soon and the person who made it won't be too mad at me Ghost accounty (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I've nominated the 'Anarchy' one for deletion per your reasoning. Regards, скоморохъ 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

howdy - someone made a cat called "earth liberation front" - that's pretty pointless, as is the anarcho-primitivism one. also, i think someone should do something to integrate the "anarchist films" and "documentaries on anarchism" cats. what do you think about all these biopics of anarchists like oscar wilde, emiliano zapata, abbie hoffman etc, that aren't included in the cat just because no one ever mentions the word anarchism?Ghost accounty (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrealistic Artists

Waddaya think, prod or take it to AfD? Totally superfluous article, created for who-knows-what reason. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Active, experienced creator, so prod is unlikely to get anywhere. Why not a merge proposal to surrealism? скоморохъ 18:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would make more sense, wouldn't it? I've not had enough coffee today... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the page again, and the creator's activity, it seems the page was created, at least in part, to advertise a nonnotable "surrealistic" artist named Gary Huey. As such, the article was created in bad faith. There is nothing new in the article whatever. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the content from both articles, and you are probably more familiar with surrealism on Wiki than anyone else, so I say if you're sure, go ahead and redirect. Let the bickering commence thereafter! скоморохъ 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may just do that... Other things going on right now (see below) have got me riled up, so I am not sure if I want to get involved in more bickering. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Annoying prick" (that would be me, apparently)

You might find this amusing: [1]. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment over there. Much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You're not doing yourself any favours revert warring, you know, and not from an adminstrative/ban point of view, but simply from an enjoyment/fulfillment point of view. I find the encyclopedia most rewarding when I am creating something new. Staring at the watchlist waiting to make petty corrections just makes my experience deadeningly depressive. скоморохъ 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Thanks for the advice. If you've been paying attention, you'll know this advice might've come too late, as I am up at An3rr again. At the same time, I have to say that what is or is not "petty" is in the eye of the beholder, yes? Anyway, I appreciate the thought. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

threatening comment on userpage

Don't try and intidate me.. what attack? who would block me? --maxrspct ping me 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I haven't edited your userpage. If you have a problem with something I wrote, please link to it so I know what you're talking about. In the meantime, please try and remain civil. скоморохъ 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U know what i mean (my usertalk).. i dont know what u mean about IP addresses - yes i forgot to sign in. This is a webcafe bytheway. --maxrspct ping me 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing my talkpage.. it is becoming an annoyance. Since you are active on the Anarchism article ..and come from a selfprofessed anarcho-capitalist contingent i would rather some other admin deal with any issue. I honestly believe you are an RJII sockpuppet and just can't resist bugging me though i suggest you keep away - stop trying to intimdate me and stop running the article through with crafty POV. Are you an admin? Do you want to be? Why do you have cyrillic name displayed? Go away or i'll get a real one. - maxrspct ping me 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You initiated a conversation with me, I am simply replying to your comments. I am not an administrator, come from no contingent and I am not self-professed as anything. If you honestly believe I am "an RJII sockpuppet", please, please, I beseech you, report me (and everyone else you have accused) to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser so that I will be banned and your problems solved. I have never tried to intimidate you; I left a warning on an anonymous IP, 86.22.72.84 for blatant vandalism directed at another user - you have yet to confirm or deny you are responsible. If it is not you, then what on earth are you objecting to? скоморохъ 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Por qué no te callas?

Someone else keeps removing one of your cites. Why? Can you find an English-language translation? Bearian (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my cite, I just drive-by reverted an unexplained removal of text. You might want ask the user in question or join the talkpage discussion, as I will not be maintaining the article. Regards, скоморохъ 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left anarchism

What is going on over there? It looks like max-what's-'is-name stopped just short of calling you a sockpuppet in his last edit summary. His reversions seem to have no merit beyond thinking you are wrong and he is right, and he is certainly acting in bad faith. I have not yet taken a close look at the changes you made, but I read the discussion on the talk page, and your reasoning is valid. The article has not been high on my priority list. I am curious, though, as to the situation. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into it so much, because there is a certain class of editor who will blindly revert anything she smells as disagreeing with her POV, but will be loth to engage in constructive debate due to lack of commitment. Such battles are not won by reversion but by making casual, incremental improvements to the article. It looks like Mr. Rspct is working in good faith on the talkpage, but the history of our discussion is available to view on this talkpage and on his. Appreciate if we kept this low-profile. скоморохъ 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Say no more. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Dembrovskis

Hi Skomorokh, I have removed your speedy deletion tag from Victor Dembrovskis since the article clearly asserts the notability of the subject. If you still feel that the article should be deleted I suggest you nominate it for a articles for deletion discussion. It seems clear to me that he is a notable person, especially given fairly extensive coverage of his case in the press. Thanks, Gwernol 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 Google hits? No sources in article attesting to the claim that this individual is a serial rapist? I'm not sure I quite follow your rationale. скоморохъ 13:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD:A7 only applies to articles that do not have a claim of notability. As long as there is an assertion that subject of the article is notable - as is clearly the case here - speedy deletion does not apply. If you believe the claim of notability is false you need to either propose deletion or take it to AfD. In this case the article claimed coverage in The Times, which is a starting point. I agree that more sourcing would be better and I have provided three such sources. The reason you only saw 8 results on Google was because his name is actually Victor Dembovskis, as you would have found if you'd followed the Google spelling correction. Under his correct name there are plenty of good sources. This person is clearly notable. Gwernol 14:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are, but the burden of proof lies with the original Wikipedia article, and with regard to biographies of living persons I do not think we should give the benefit of te doubt to potentially slanderous content. Good work on the article by the way. скоморохъ 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bizarro fiction

If and when you have a moment, I would like a 2nd opinion over there. This looks like conflict-of-interest to me. The problem is, with this kind genre (or sub-genre) writing, it is almost always people involved who end up writing and/or editing these articles. In this case, the potential c-o-i seems too great to ignore. Before I say anything further, as I say, I would like another opinion. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree with the COI concerns, but as usual, COI is a bad justification for making structural changes. More comments on the talkpage. скоморохъ 17:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments. To be clear, my concern about the COI was not my only, or even primary, reason for proposing the merger. My main concern was, and remains, the existence of a list article made up mostly of redlinks, and totally devoid of references. The fact---not belief---that said article was created for promotional purposes certainly concerns me. At any rate, I have withdrawn the merge proposal, and will be watching the articles in the hope that they will be improved. Thanks for your comments, they are, as always, appreciated. Cheers!

Oh, appropos of nothing, have you ever considered becoming an administrator, or is that contrary to your anarchist ethics? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of that; as this talk page attests to, my litany of errors and generally sullen demeanour mean I'm unlikely to win any social networking popularity contests any time soon. I was going to ask you the same question though; you have nearly 9,000 edits, deletion experience and 50+ AIV reports. Are you interested? скоморохъ 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is something I am interested in, but not something I am ready to consider yet. I still feel that there are a great many things I do not yet know and/or am not yet comfortable with---I just today made my first 3RR report, for example, and needed help doing that. When I was asked (by OrangeMike, if I remember correctly) some time back about this, I said I would not consider it until Spring at the earliest. Now, I am thinking Summer.

As to your "errors" and "sullen demeanour," as you say, I know of administrators who are as bad or worse. But, my real point is that I think you are overstating your failings. As with everything else here, though, it is your choice. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're better prepared than you say — your contributions per month are very high and very stable, so you are almost certain to accumulate experience in most areas before long. For my part, I am simply highly lethargic about having to win friends and influence people; WP:RFA just looks like a massive circle-jerk most of the time. In any case, back to work! скоморохъ 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam pages

"they are only speedy deleteable if it is by user request"

Wrong. They fall under Speedy criteria G11 -- that's "G" as in general ("These criteria apply to all namespaces, and are in addition to namespace-specific criteria in following sections").:

"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

Note that it says "pages", not "articles". --61.45.36.159 (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I apologize, you're right that userpages are technically eligible under general criteria, but I'd like to re-iterate that WP:UAA is the best forum for dealing with such matters as it addresses to the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. Regards, скоморохъ 10:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically, actually. Advertising doesn't get a free pass because "User" is attached to the front of the page name. --61.45.36.159 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Watches the Watchers?

Well, I admit it, I do, sometimes. Just to say thank you for marking genetic epidemiology patrolled. I'm glad it made it over the first hurdle on the long and winding road to becoming a good article! (ouch, that was a bit of a mixed metaphor). Regards, and have a happy leap day, Qwfp (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) PS you've either got very good eyesight or a very large screen.[reply]

My pleasure, thank you for the much more laudable task of writing the article; both it and the field look very promising. P.S. I hadn't noticed issues with text size; I have the luxury of both. скоморохъ 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...well, further thanks for the copyediting just now. (Must say I'm usually a bit more careful about stub-sorting myself than that, but line spacing is a weak point, and I can't be bothered spell-checking. ) I always feel there's something not quite right about a page if no-one else at all has edited it at all. PS I'd find your chosen text size ok if I were on my work desktop, but on my laptop it's a little hard on my aging eyes. Qwfp (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Nation (novel)

I didn't edit that article man, i wrote it, i think if i wrote the article, i should have the right to put my name on it. I know it is a stub, but i read the book like three weeks ago and i cannot remember the intracacies. Cut me some slack man. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supose you do have a point, the idea of wikipedia to democratise information has changed dramatcially, now you cannot move through an article withouth wading through knee deep in beuracracy, maybe we should talk to the brain, instead of talking amongst our selves. ALthough having said that, in government people can talk and talk and talk without saying anything, and at wikipedia, it seems things do eventually get changed, what do you think? --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to understand what you are saying, I think this website works in some ways better than a website like Bored Of Studies, if you look for the article it will explain better. Essentially, you upload your notes, and no one can edit them, they remain the same for however long they are on the site. Which means that they stay either really good or really bad for the duration of their lives. But, the information is verifiable and you know when you read something good that it is good, because your teacher has taught the same thing, you have just forgotten it. And that is one of the main downfallings of wikipedia, someone who wants to cheat the system can, so long as they can verify it. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony L Miles

Just to let you know: you can't speedy delete on the grounds of reposting material unless the material was deleted as a result of an XfD discussion. In this case, I have substituted your tag for A7 - non-notable persons. IF you're not sure how something was deleted, you can check the logs for the page which should tell you. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Twinkle often obscures the intricacies of these criteria. It seems curious that an article worthy of speedy on independent grounds is not a candidate for speedy when recreated; it would seem to imply the original decision is assumed mistaken.скоморохъ 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staine (band)

The assertions in this article don't have any support in the referenced website, which is also just about entirely devoid of information. Could it be a fake? The album "Smiley Snack" which supposedly launched them into "international fame" and "the mainstream" is unknown to the web and to amazon. Tb (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the previous version of the page, Staine was identified as a hoax and then deleted by User:Slakr. Tb (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left libertarian

What's going on with that? I don't understand why you're saying that the agorism text is a source for that, instead of being a source for agorism. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-libertarianism and agorism are not synonyms - your wording suggested they are. The New Libertarian Manifesto is a source for two claims; 1) Agorism was influenced by ancap 2) Agorism is a form of left-lib. скоморохъ 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the only left-libertarianism that the source is talking about is agorism. Why not consolidate it like I was doing? The way it is now looks like it could be referring to traditional left-libertarianism (common ownership of resources), which it isn't. Operation Spooner (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary. Otsuka is a normal left libertarian. He's not a left libertarian under the idiosyncratic agorist definition of left libertarian. Are you saying he was influenced by Rothbard? Operation Spooner (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your version suggested that the property-orientated left-libertarianism was agorism, whereas the fact is there are other types besides agorism, such as that of the political philosophers Vallenyne, Otsuka etc. Otsuka is something of a left-Lockean - he believes homesteading a piece of unclaimed property is only justifiable if you leave enough of the same quality and quantity unclaimed for everyone else. Interestingly, and this is totally uncited, but I was speaking to Otsuka last year (around the time the Left-libertarianism article was under a lot of attention) and he said he had never even heard of the new mutualists (Carson), agorists (Konkin), Karl Hess or any of the non-academic strands of left lib in our article. The only post-Locke popular figure he was aware of was Henry George; besides that, his) and presumably Vallentyne and Hillel's) left-libertarianism was entirely confined to academia. скоморохъ 21:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what your problem was with with now. I can reword it then. You are aware that the term "left libertarian" is extremely non-standard when used by Konkin and a few people on the internet right? Otsuka wouldn't be aware of those people because they're not left libertarians as the term is nearly universally defined. All that Konkin means by "left libertarian" is that his philosophy is "revolutionary," and even then the meaning of "revolutionary" is redefined by him, because all he means by that is doing business in the underground economy. He's not a left libertarianism is the standard sense, which is believing in type of egalitarianism concerning natural resources (often having to do with Locke's proviso, which agorism/anarcho-capitalism rejects). "Left libertarian" to Otsuka and "left libertarian" to Konkin are two different things. I can see how mutualism could maybe be construed as left libertarian because of their views on land, but I haven't seen a source for that. Btw, thanks for correcting the vandalism on my page. Operation Spooner (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I guess the only difference between you and me is that you think there is a standard left-libertarianism. I just don't see it. I would hazard a guess from the kind of references you usually add that you focus more on formal scholars than movementarians; I can imagine that there might be consensus among political scholars on what left-libertarianism is. скоморохъ 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

I have listened to the programme and have realised you are right. I thought the citation at the end of the sentence was only the citation for the main clause and that the subordinate clause was uncited. Would it be a good idea to edit it so that the citation is cited at the end of both clauses so noone else would become confused like I was?

The following sentence does not seem to fit with the radio programme, which says that the Enragées did not use the term 'anarchist' themselves but were denounced as such. Munci (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with your diligence! The Enrages statement is cited to another source (ref 17) which is <Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2004. pg. 85>. We would have to check that to make sure it is inaccurate; most of the time we assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the reference. If the BBC and the Sheehan book do not directly contradict each other, there is probably some way we could reword the claim to it fit both sources. Regards, скоморохъ 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HST

Clearly, you simply do not know anything about MZ Motorrad- und Zweiradwerk. Hell, there used to be a car called the Locomobile (which, for the longest time, I thought Ishmael Reed had made up), so why could there not be a Gonzomobile? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petty Americans, do not trouble me with your neanderthal masculinist fossil-fuel based transportation; the future of Gonzo lies in hoverships power by spit and acid-laced urine. скоморохъ 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm living in the past. Locomobile went belly-up in the '30s.

But, now I'm inspired... maybe I will put a steam-powered Gonzomobile in my script. Giving you full credit, of course. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]