User talk:Skomorokh/dva

Please explain

Could you explain what the objection was that prompted the template for the universe reality article? If the issue of notability is your concern, then you would have to question the validity of the Urantia Book article. The universe reality article is a summary of what is said in the Urantia Book. There are no third party sources of the Urantia Book on the matter of universe reality. The problem is the nature of the material in the book itself. The Urantia Book itself does clearly meet notability requirements. Richiar 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the Urantia book article fulfils the notability criteria because among other things, it is the subject of at least two independent books as noted in that article. Yet that is not enough to prove that Universe reality deserves its own article - each article must stand on its own. As someone completely unfamiliar with the subject, it is far from clear to me that this is deserving of its own article. So, following the guideline at WP:N, I "put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors". Because the article, as it stands, contains neither introductory explanation nor sources to support it, it could be, hypothetically a) completely made up b) unable to meet notability criteria c) worthy of inclusion, but only as a subsection of another article or d) a perfectly good article that just needs a little work to be brought up to standard. I added the tag to alert editors (particularly yourself) that the article was in danger of deletion unless a claim for notability was made. It would be a shame for a perfectly good article that you have obviously put a lot of work into to be swiftly deleted by an unsympathetic passing editor. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 15:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I don't think the ideas in "Universe reality" can be a stand alone article, because it is not possible to validate them, and the Urantia Book has not been around long enough to generate 3rd party sources on the structure of universe reality. But is is a summary of what the Urantia Book says. I was intending it as a side article of the Urantia Book.

It is intended as a side article of the Urantia Book with some direct relationship to cosmology. Maybe you can suggest how I can move it in that direction. Richiar 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find sources, the article is almost certainly going to be deleted. Unfortunately, as interesting as it might be to examine the relationship between Urantia Book's conception of universe reality and cosmology, unless you use only academic or other notable scholarly sources, this would be a violation of WP:OR. I suggest merging (by copy/paste) the text of Universe reality with the existing Urantia Book article, perhaps as a subsection. Alternatively, if you can find consensus among other editors or independent sources, you could start an article on Urantia movement, Urantia philosophy, Urantia cosmology etc., if such things exist and are notable. Best of luck, Skomorokh ^incite 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 other articles that are identical in nature to the universe reality article. They are: 1) History and future of the world (The Urantia Book) 2) Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book 3) Revelation (The Urantia Book) 4) Thought Adjuster. How can universe reality be a violation of OR and not these other articles? None of these other articles meet the criteria you mention, but none of these were considered a violation of WP:OR. Richiar 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been unclear, allow me to rephrase. While there may very well be interesting/important etc. links between concepts (including universe reality) in The Urantia Book and existing spheres of knowledge (cosmology etc.), unless they have been made by independent, notable, third party scholars, they have no place in Wikipedia. If you or I were to make such links, it would be a WP:OR violation. Sorry for the confusion.

As for the other articles you linked to, none of them meet the notability criteria and are at risk of being summarily deleted. They may or may not be OR - I am in no position to judge. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Due to the nature of the material of the Urantia Book, I don't think it can be handled with the usual considerations in terms of third sources, etc. There would have to be an understanding with the editors and admin that its not possible to document 3rd sources, because the UB hasn't been around long enough to generate them. In otherwords, I think the case could be made to request consideration for an exception here. However, to respect the WP: OR policy, I have added the material in universe reality and revelation to the main article as you suggested, as the way to manage the issue. Your addition to wikify the lede was a good improvement, by the way. Thanks for that. Richiar 20:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ind-anarchism

FYI I gave extended reasons on talk page. You were a bit quick to judge there. OUP-published is not automatic qualification for notable inclusion the intro of any article.-- infinity0 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I won't revert because I realised I was a bit too quick to delete but for what it's worth I think the info should be moved out of the intro. -- infinity0 22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you cited in removing the quote only began after your edit and before mine. As the material was cited, and published in the OUP, which definitely constitutes a reliable source, the burden of proof rests on the remover of the material, per WP:CITE. Had you begun the discussion before removing your material, I would have been inclined to agree with you. As it stands, a third party has moved it to a footnote. Thanks for your maturity in not immediately reverting, let's continue the discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh ^incite 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skomorokh. I'll ask you this since you seem to be more respectful of references than a couple other people over there. Is there a way to put this about the terms used for the two main schools of anarchism to a wider audience to judge its inclusion in the article? Do you know what I'm saying? Just talking to a few anarchists with a point of view to represent is not very productive and is like talking to a brick wall. Operation Spooner 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process suggests taking a break and editing other articles for a while, but I don't think that will help matters here. I think the points of contention are too technical to be resolved by consensus - both you and the others have good faith, policy-based justifications for your edits. So I recommend calling in the big guns with a Request for Comment so that people who know more about this than you and eye can give unbiased knowledgeable opinions about things. Let me know if you want help setting up the RFC. Skomorokh ^incite 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good to know for future disputes, or this one if it keeps up. Operation Spooner 01:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This guy Philliberty is not even trying to follow any referencing guidelines now. People like him is why Wikipedia is so unreliable. It don't know if it's even worth bothering with it when you can't even find common ground to follow the referencing rules. Operation Spooner 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age

Please explain to me why you deleted my link to the lyrics page on the Queens of the Stone Age article. I hardly think that qualifies as linkspam or copyright violation. --Eastlaw 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Certainly. It's contrary to Wikipedias policy on external links to link to websites that may violate the copyrights of others. In this instance, the lyrics site you added showed no sign of having the permission of the copyright owners, Interscope Records. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Queens of the Stone Age, Did you in fact receive "You Know what you Did"? BurnMuffin ^{Word, bro.} 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibsonian

Howdy. No problem at all with the revert, I just wanted to explain what I was attempting to fix: At articles like Agrippa (A Book of the Dead), where the entry is the first in the line, it's slightly confusing having the bolded item next to the bolded section title. Not at all critical though, and I agree that my fix was less than optimal :)

However I am going to make the author's name identifiable as a link by removing the black colouring.

That's all, just fyi. :) --Quiddity 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy. I appreciate your concerns, but I believe that generic templates are generally frought with design and aesthetic compromises and are unnecessary and undesirable in situations where editors are willing to do the coding, as here. I agree with you that the bolding makes for confusion, but that can be rectified by changing the formatting of the section titles. As for restoring the blue wikilink, this violates the principle of bolding the title of pages in order to state clearly and without confusion what is to follow, as in the the presence in the lede of articles of the title of the page, without links. I am copying this discussion to the template talkpage. Skomorokh ^incite 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi,

I'm bringing this up here so's not to clutter the Objectivism talk page - both our comments are now at the same heading level, and apparently the talk page guidelines have changed so now I dont' know what to do. Normally I edit so everyone has a specific indent level whereas now we're both at the same one. WLU 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that your edits were in good faith, but my comment was not addressed to you but to the previous statement. Nesting the comments as you did made it seem that I was addressing your comments, thereby confusing readers. Skomorokh ^incite 18:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hey, I've been seeing your activity around places I frequent, so I figured I'd send a note, appealing for any advice or help you might be able to contribute to something I'm working on. I've started writing the Anarchism in Cuba article in my sandbox, and could really use folks opinions on how it's going, and/or help in making it a good solid article. In particular, right now it's feeling like a glorified timeline, so help in making it less so would be awesome. Cheers! Murderbike 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Woah sorry, didn't even see this comment until now. I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable on Cuba radical history, and have no access to offline sources at the moment, but I can make structural suggestions/changes if you like? I'll go ahead and play in the sandbox, let me know if it's not appreciated. Sorry again for my ridiculous delay in responding. Skomorokh ^incite 11:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The death of Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia

Done! (Nice image, BTW.) Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish anarchism

Hi Skomorokh- You have made a merger proposal regarding Jewish anarchism and Anarchism and orthodox Judaism, but have not given your arguments. Could you do so on the talk page(s)? BobFromBrockley 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, thanks Bob. Skomorokh ^incite 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camwhore with flowers.jpg

Hi, I brought this up on the Cam whore article talk page, but wanted your input too. I noticed you uploaded the image off of someone's Flickr account with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which would be fine (I think, I'm not an expert on these things) except the girl who uploaded it to Flickr isn't the girl in the picture. In her description on the page it says she found a camera and that was one of the pictures in it, so, as it isn't her work, I don't think she can license it as such and I don't think it can be licensed here like that. Since I wasn't sure, I asked an admin who dealt with image problems, and he suggested I bring it to WP:IfD and bring up my concerns. I wanted to get your feedback, but I'll probably bring it to IfD soon (I'll give you the link here when I do). Phydend 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not au fait with copyright issues so will not take part in the discussion but I have no problem abiding by any decision made. Skomorokh ^incite 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all the copyright issues, but I did bring it to IfD. I think they know more about everything there than I do. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Phydend 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical economists template

Hello there, your classical economists template, which I'd like to use, seems to be faulty - the names go off the edge of it; can you correct that? Also do you know how to make it a drop down menu, like, for instance, this one:

If you could get back to me, I'd be very grateful! Wikidea 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Same with the Mercantilism template - and I just realised, you've done them all! It'd be great if you could tweak them a bit. Wikidea 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, the problem appeared to be non-breaking spaces and the deprecated NavigationBox template. I've made an attempt at a fix, let me know if you had something else in mind. The new template is as follows:

Skomorokh ^incite 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson

I notice you've nominated William Gibson on the GAC page and are a major contributor to the article, so you may be interested in a heads-up on a William Gibson interview. See William Gibson with Spook Country. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the link, but I have yet to read Spook Country and have been diligently avoiding any mention of it whatsoever in any form...I have a pathological fear of spoilers! Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sherman Austin

Hey, would you happen to have time to weigh in here? Cheers! Murderbike 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I can't say I understood exactly what was being debated, but I have attempted to clarify matters and have gone through the article again for weasel words and pov. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 19:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm just concerned with the term "pro-violence", which I think is inherently POV, especially when coming from a source that is a cop writing for Law and Order Magazine. I was trying to say that AT LEAST, the description should be in quotes, and attributed (not just sourced in the refs section), and trying to not let it snowball so much away from that main point. Thanks for piping in! Murderbike 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if it is included at all, it should be in quotes and attributed. If it were a featured article, the ref should probably not be there at all, but considering the low quality/reliability of some of the references in the article, it would be pov to omit the cop cop source and not the others. Skomorokh ^incite 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation question

Hi Skomorokh, just saw your question at Wikipedia:Footnotes, and wanted to drop you a line because William Gibson is on my watchlist and I've noticed all the good work you've been doing there! Anyways, to answer your question, there's a somewhat complex system in place on the article Charles Darwin, for example, that makes use of the <ref></ref> system, and also the Wikipedia:Harvard referencing system. I could help implement at William Gibson, if you'd like. Cheers! --JayHenry 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jay, I'm glad you liked my work, and the system used at Charles Darwin is exactly what I was looking for. I've attempted to implement it at the Gibson article, and I would quite appreciate it if you could help simplify or improve the footnotes there. Thanks again, Skomorokh ^incite 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson

		The Photography Barnstar
		Awarded to all the people here who worked so hard to rescue this image. You'll have to share it, though: everyone gets one slice. :-) Lupo 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC). Copied here! -Susanlesch 14:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work in improving William Gibson to GA status. Congratulations! CaNNoNFoDDa 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• bows floridly*

Thank you most graciously for this magnanimous recognition. Skomorokh ^incite 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age pt 2

Your right about the whole Sexron thing.

But you must admit, Sextron sounds better :) Marcbaldwin27 16:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More reminiscient of robot rock maybe, but you must allow that Sexron rolls off the tongue smoother, less disjointed? Skomorokh ^incite 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

bad reversions

your script (or whatever it is) twinkle is misidentifying my edits on anarchism in the United States as "vandalism" and reverting them. Bob A 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of referenced supported points of view which you disagree with, in spite of longstanding consensus, is patent vandalism. Reverting attempts at restoring the articles more than twice in 24 hours is disruptive and in violation of WP:3RR. Please desist, you are being extremely unconstructive. Skomorokh ^incite 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

inquiry

I noticed an unexpected and improbable edit by yerself, it contained elements of fear,, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! You may have to be awarded

The Comfy Chair!

regarding ... Cygnis insignis 08:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Something of a backhanded compliment, considering; I accept in good faith nonetheless. Skomorokh ^incite 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive

Hi, I reverted your recent change - didn't look like vandalism to me. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I was trying to restore the synopsis but you had beaten me to it. Thanks for reverting. Skomorokh ^incite 17:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

QOTSA 3

Hm... I took a listen to the track, but it's not downloadble anywhere that I can find. Good track though. BurnMuffin ^{Word, bro.} 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)