User talk:Skomorokh/pet

Reply

Hi Skomorokh! Thanks for your question. I use the MOS, yes, "The main use of capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms." It appears that the author's name is B. Travis, and he simply didn't bother with capitalization, lol. Also, I considered moving that blog reference to the External links section, as per the reliable sources policy, blogs are not normally considered reliable. The article will also need third party references, as the only two there are both primary sources, so not considered neutral. However, since the article was brand new, I decided against doing that, figuring that it would most likely be added to shortly. (P.S. I really love the "incite" link to your talk page in your sig, that's hilarous!) Ariel♥Gold 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you, as well, for your kind and gentle manner of discussion! (Although the size of your font is exceedingly hard to read for someone running a 1600x1080 resolution! lol. And I have perfect vision. Poor Ariel feels old!) Have an absolutely wonderful Saturday night (or day, or Sunday morning, depending on your time zone) Ariel♥Gold 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:AfD discussion for RRIICCEE

Most definitely. I think a case was made for notability, and at least two of the sources were non-trivial enough to begin expansion of the article. I changed my vote this morning. It is clear you have a strong feeling on this, and I for one appreciate how you handled this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My strong feelings are more about under-researched Xfd nominations than the particular article; I hate to see a potentially interesting topic get removed just because it has WP:PROBLEMS. Thank you very much for your open-mindedness and willingness to revisit your decision. Skomorokh ^incite 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hess, Karl

Thanks! Allixpeeke (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism and comedy

If you have the time and the inclination, can you weigh in with your opinion over here ([[1]])? I should not say this, probably, but I am holding off commenting for now, 'cause I have this almost overwhelming urge to say something snarky. And it is not justified, 'cause I think this guy who's asking questions is not maliciously-intended at all. Furthermore, I feel like I have been dominating the article of late, and I would like someone else to offer their opinion. Believe it or not, I do know that I am wrong sometimes. Anyway, as I say, if you've the time and inclination, I would appreciate your input. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried the assume-good-faith, hit-over-the-head-with-policy approach. Its likely to have a daunting effect. Skomorokh ^incite 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mind has been elsewhere, and I did not look to see that you had replied here. I appreciate your comment on that matter.

I notice that you've been doing some cat/sub-cat work. That is an area I generally stay away from. But, recently, while doing some work on the Irish Mob article, I came across a "Winter Hill Gang" category---which really seems absurd to me---into which someone had put both the Irish Mob and Winter Hill Gang articles. It is difficult to understand, sometimes, how it is that people fail to understand how a much broader issue cannot be placed into a category that deals with only one small fraction of said issue. But, as I say, I generally stay away from the categories. What a mess. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism Task Force

Thanks for the invite. I've signed on. I've got four encyclopedia entries, a book chapter and a couple of other things in the works over the holidays, but I'll be as active as other commitments allow. Libertatia (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for quote

Thanks, I used your quote, "This nomination reeks of WP:PROBLEM" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy). Odessaukrain (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance, consider me gruntled. Skomorokh ^incite 18:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes cannot be Wikified

Skomorokh, quotes by their nature cannot be wikified. The quotes have been provided to demonstrate that Wikiversity is indeed notable at the leading edge of pedagogical research and belongs in Wikipedia just as other similar inititiatives such as MIT's OpenCourseWare or One Laptop Per Child programs. If you wish to reinsert the wikifiy tag please place it near the top of the article to indicate you wish the entire article wikified without inviting insertions into quotes provided with citation to original sources for readers eddification. Many people have asked what is Wikiversity and what makes it notable. These research papers help answer those questions in detail for anyone who wishes to learn about Wikiviersity or edit the article in good faith. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. cc Wikiversity discussion page. Lazyquasar (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article epistemological anarchism, 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 01:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand an edit...

...it's more often than not better to ask rather than undo. [2] violet/riga (t) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed relevant material without including any rationale whatsoever in your edit summary. It is common and correct practice to discourage such unconstructive editing. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a constructive edit if you know our policies and guidelines. If it were anon that might be different, but undoing long standing users without looking into it at all isn't particularly constructive in itself. Asking me why I did it would've been much better if you didn't know why it was done. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha good one

You were waiting for someone to nom an article involving anarchy so as to bury it? No, I will AGF... you just have really bad timing and pushed my article to the bottom out of careless disregard. Maybe you are scrolli-capped. Welcome! ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pattern recognition-br.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pattern recognition-br.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Anarcho-pacifism, was selected for DYK!

On January 1, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarcho-pacifism, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo

Hey, so I did a bit of work on this article over the holidays, lots of sourcing, changing a lot of awkwardly translated wording, etc. So I wanted to see if you'd be up for outlining in detail the problems you see with the article that warrant the tags at the top, so I can keep plugging away at it and try to get it up to Good Article status. Hope your break was good! Murderbike (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is good, and hopefully will continue to be so to the extent that I will be unable to comply with your request. Cleanup tags are just cries for attention (and possibly warning), and seeing as you're attending to the article, they are superfluous so I have removed them for now.

Off the top of my head some things to consider would be integrating some of the sub-subsections and the blockquotes of the Organzation and function section (i.e. Plenary sessions), subsectioning the Civil War section (as a rule, no less than one and no more than three full-length paragraphs per subdivision) and integrating, removing or radically expanding the Noted members section. In most cases, the lists should be integrated (e.g. committees and secretaryships).

I'd also question whether the Org section goes into too much (uncited) detail about the unions structure - undue weight might be a concern here. Given access to the Beevor/Fernandez/Martinez books the history section could very quickly be brought up to a Good article standard of citation - similar to the bulk of Anarchism in Cuba. And obviously, that Footnotes section needs to be overhauled completely. Good luck with it! Skomorokh ^incite 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'm gonna move this over the article talk page as I always feel weird having people's talk pages on my watchlist. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger of The Internationale in Indian Languages into The Internationale

Skomorokh, I think the merger of The Internationale in Indian Languages into The Internationale is unrealistic. I was against the attempt to include Bengali lyrics in the main article because there was no information that the Bengali version played a significant role in the global history of the song. Furthermore, if you take a look at the history of the Internationale article a few years ago, you'll see that it includes texts of very many versions of the song, which then got moved to Wikisource. If the text and the history of the Bengali version were included in the Wikipedia article, than why not Spanish? Tagalog? German? Serbo-Croatian? - in the end, it would be the same situation as before, and the article would be exceedingly long. Miranche (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the The Internationale in Indian Languages article's independent existence, because it does not seem to me to be notable enough for its own topic. As it is undeniably a subtopic of The Internationale, it seemed wise o merge any valuable content there. I don't think the lyrics constitute valuable content for an English language encyclopedia, but I imagined other editors might want to keep some of the translation info and/or external links. If the merge is rejected, I think the subarticle should be deleted; i hope this clarifies the matter. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 11:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No tags, please.

My page clearly says not to use them. You ignored it, anyway. As such, it was removed for being in bad faith.

There have been only four reverts -- partially involving NPOV nonsense that's been tagged as uncited for over a month, partially involving restoring information that was removed by single-purpose accounts and cited by a mainstream economist, on a university website.

I intend to bring the matter before an RFC or other mediation. Sending me the tag was just rude and unnecessary. Zenwhat (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry, it was negligible for me not to see your no tag request. I only intended to give you due warning for your recent disruptive edits. Skomorokh ^incite 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On Austrian economics

Thank you for your constructive edits to Austrian economics, but some of them are clearly contentious and blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE. You cannot place an argument for a fringe view and a rebuttal to the mainstream view in the lead, if your edits are to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Even if Austrian economics is true, the standard of proof in Wikipedia is WP:VERIFIABILITY. Robert Jacobson and Peter Boettke are both Austrian economists themselves. As thea rticle on WP:FRINGE notes: Fringe sources cannot be used to establish fringe views. They can only be used to reference what such views are.

We could modify the lead to address this by including words like "Austrians claim" and "allegedly" but then the lead would end up looking like a violation of NPOV by attacking Austrian economics before it's even presented.

Furthermore, your claim that the "dominant view" in science today is logical positivism is false and a common Austrian misunderstanding about mainstream economics, which was influenced by lots and lots of non-positivists. You piping "positivists" around "logical positivists" is also a common Austrian misunderstanding, and as Wikipedia itself notes, the two concepts are not the same:

• Positivist
• Logical positivist Zenwhat (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Space Hijackers

I've restored the page. Walton^One 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Space Hijackers

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Space Hijackers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Haymarket square

Oops, we're editing over each other, sorry for my part in the muddle of that. However, I'm not sure I see the need for some of your edits. I'll wait until you're done either way... pls feel free to discuss. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't even noticed! If you intend on making a number of edits to the article in a short spade of time, you might consider employing Template:Inuse or Template:Under-construction. I have no editorial agenda for the page. Skomorokh ^incite 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist communism

First of all thanks for the Welcome! I have got references for my edit. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find them as my Library is in a state of chaos. I’ve flagged both articles as disputed for the moment as I feel that they are not factually correct. I will not re edit until I can reference them accurately. Regards M A V Delacey (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reasonable response. You only need references for editing the actual article; they are not strictly necessary for disputing the content on the talkpages. Wikipedians are generally very open to people with concerns about factual accuracy so don't be shy. Skomorokh ^incite 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA for Somalia

Hey, good job, I'm glad someone had the motivation to take care of that article after the mess it was when I first encountered it. Kudos! Murderbike (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish it had material from actual anarchists instead of bourgeois economists and statist ideologues (USG, UN, IMF, you know who you are), but I guess you make do with what you've got! At least we get to add to the paltry number of recognized-quality anarchism articles. I have high hopes for the CNT too.Skomorokh ^incite 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Word, I can't even really bring myself to read the whole thing, but that's not really why I'm here, sooo... whatever. I'm really excited about the CNT article too, after monday, I'm gonna be "homeless" for two weeks, so won't be able to concentrate on it as much. Hopefully momentum won't be lost (fingers crossed). After all this work, and the help from others, I have more confidence in getting it up to FA instead of just GA. Murderbike (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology and that is a positive demonstration of good faith, which I hope ArbCom takes note of. Zenwhat (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

If you have a moment, can you take a look at the "what links here" page for this redirect? I moved 12 Monkeys back to Twelve Monkeys earlier today, and then set about fixing the pages that linked to the title with the 12. However, for some reason, even after changing {{Template:Terry Gilliam Films}}, all of his other films still show up on the "what links here" page. Do you have any idea why this might be the case? None of the articles has a direct link to 12 Monkeys in the text. I am simply baffled. I realize this is of no great importance, I just cannot allow a mystery like this to stand. At any rate, if you have a moment to take a look, I would appreciate it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's happened me before and I'm almost certain it's simply a time lag issue. Give it a few hours and all should be well. Skomorokh ^incite 21:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if that might not be the case. Thanks for the reassurance. I hope you are well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob, take it easy. Skomorokh ^incite 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

vigilantism

Hi Skomorkh -- You removed Category:Vigilantes from Category:Internet vigilantism; it looks to me like an appropriate categorization. Why does that seem like an inappropriate category to you? --Lquilter (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo; the answer to that is Category:Vigilantism, were it to exist. I didn't remove Category:Vigilantes from Category:Internet vigilantism so much as move it to the subcategory Category:Internet vigilantes. It's technically inaccurate to list Internet vigilantism in the category of Vigilantes, as most entries of the former category were no vigilantes per se, but vigilantist websites and incidents. Skomorokh ^incite 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alexandru Bogdan-Piteşti

Thanks for the GA nom, Skomorokh! I am a bit puzzled by the collateral move: I presume that you added the article to Project Philosophy due to its subject being an anarchist. This is a bit strange when one considers the implications, and it is even more strange when it has to with Bogdan-Piteşti, who never uttered something philosophical to save his life :). Instead, here's my proposal: why not gather support for the creation of a WikiProject Anarchism? I was actually always surprised to see that no such project emerged naturally so far (could it be because it implies a higher degree of organization than its target? :D). In any case: I'm sure mustering up support for such a move would be a piece of cake, so do consider it (if not right now, then in the long run). Best regards, Dahn (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I'm sorry for not inviting you, but there does exist an Anarchism Task Force a few of us through together recently; that Philosophy project banner is actually the trace of the Task Force, which is part of WikiProject Philosophy. And while Bogdan-Piteşti is a rather odd candidate for a philosopher, the article does cite him as an anarchist, and we're not too choosy about the details. I think the article is in great shape for WP:GA, and I hope you'll consider joining the Anarchism Task Force in spite of our abject failure to market ;) Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I simply did not notice the task force addition. Now it definitely makes sense - though you guys could still consider a full-blown "on its own" Anarchism project in the future. Thank you for the kind words, and I will indeed consider joining the task force (if I can manage to balance all my other commitments, that is). Best, Dahn (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)