User talk:Skomorokh/β

Existence - permission to clear up

This article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Existence is a good example of how bad Wikipedia can get. The concept of 'existence' is at the core of the Western philosophical traditition. Every good reference work should deal with it. For example of a good article about it, see the Stanford Encyclopedia article by Barry Miller (philosopher).

The corresponding article in Wikipedia is a mess. I rewrote it http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Existence&direction=next&oldid=23376843 in 2005 to an acceptable standard, but since then it has got worse with every passing day.

Can I have permission to clean it up again please, under my proper user name? I got banned for political reasons last year. Regards Edward Ockham (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, Peter/Edward asked for my help here and you can see my response at the same place. If you are sympathetic (and I hope you are) and I can help in any way let me know --Snowded ^TALK 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snowded. Edward Ockham (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopaedia's metaphysics articles are overwhelmingly rubbish. Would I welcome a knowledgeable and dedicated editor who wished to improve one of them them? Certainly. I would not object if that editor had a colourful history, so long as they behaved responsibly in future. Would I be so welcoming if such an editor was unable to conduct themselves in a responsible co-operative manner? No, competence is required. I hope this is sufficiently clear, and feel free to post here in whatever guise if you wish to continue this discussion. Regards, Skomorokh 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anarchism and sex/love

youre welcome. i might add a section on the discussion of jealousy in anarchism. Emma Goldman and Emile Armand dedicated this subject entire essays.--Eduen (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Skomorokh 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sevigny

Hey, Skomorokh. Sorry I haven't resolved the outstanding issues in order for Sevigny's article to recieve GA, I have been on holidays and have been un-able to edit the article lately. However, I have just got on top of adding/fixing all the outstanding sources and corrected some of them. Once I have gone through the article completely and checked off all the citations and outstanding problems on the review page, I will be sure to inform you. I have re-newed interest in the article after hearing about Sevigny's Golden Globe win. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ashton, I am sorry to have failed the article but heartened to see you're returning to work on it. By all means, feel free to put the nomination back up at WP:GAN as soon as you are happy with the article. Best of luck, Skomorokh 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sloth photo and congratualtions

Thanks for the reassurance on the Sloth photo. Congratulations on 50,000 edits!!! Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for contributing it. 50k? Scary... Skomorokh 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use/archive1

Hi, can you follow up on the comments made at this FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the reminder. Skomorokh 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by William Gibson/archive1 is really close to being promoted. If you can just wrap up the few remaining unresolved comments (I think just Bencherlite's comments are pending), I think everything will be resolved. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a few bullets need biting; I'll see to that now. Skomorokh 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some assistance.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism#Very_abrasive_POV-pusher_at_Anarchism Zazaban (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it at the ATF; will comment if necessary. Oh I wish these guys would just get the message. Skomorokh 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

[1] Did I toss around the side matter that I'm an administrator, in order to remove it? No. Also, by your logic, it is not up to 1 editor and 1 administrator to decide if that stays. Just a note: I'm not watching this page. If you'd like further discussion on this matter, please leave me a note on my talk page to continue here. I don't, however, expect any such discussion. Just saying. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no you did not, and neither does that address the point. Your claim "by your logic, it is not up to 1 editor and 1 administrator to decide if that stays" does not follow. My point was that it is not for one to decide whether or not a discussion is "useful"; there are many discussions that have been on CENT that I have not felt were useful, yet did not remove because being useful to everyone is not the threshold for listing. If you don't like the page, object to it on its talkpage, but please don't try to hide it from other editors on that ground. Skomorokh 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Killiondude's removal. How is it an important discussion that requires community-wide attention? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the signatories, myself included, the issue threatens the fundamental principle of the encyclopaedia as a collaborative project. If you cannot understand the importance of that, and of alerting the community to it, perhaps contempt for that principle outweighs clue in this instance. Skomorokh 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict so some of this might be redundant)My point was that it is not for one to decide whether or not a discussion is "useful"

The person who added it felt it was useful, and unless they are using a role account it is only one person, so that logic doesn't apply. Additionally, I read the "instructions" (if you can call it that) listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and based on that page, this listing didn't seem to meet the intended purpose of the template. The "petition" is, like it says, an ongoing, unending list of people who adhere to that. How will this "contribute to the opening of policy debate and the broadening of consensus"? I don't think I implied (and I re-read my statements to double check) that a post being "useful to everyone" is "the threshold for listing". However, feel free to point out where I implied that, if I did. When I edit my posts, I go through several revisions, changing my ideas and whatnot so sometimes things can get muddled. :-) Killiondude (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, great one!

Loved your comment:

"Yes. The sophistic and blatant misinterpretation of the BLP policy used to retroactively justify blind deletions was farcical, and it's proponents wear no clothes."

Keep up the good fight. We need to work together more very soon. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 23:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"blanket use of 'see also' is not desirable"

It seems to me that saying "The most frequent choice for such sections is 'See also'" is not requiring blanket use. But, assuming it is, would you please provide me with a bit more insight regarding why blanket use of that title is not desirable? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are two reasons why "see also" is inadequate and inconsistent with our general norms of section titles: it directs the reader (thus contravening encyclopaedic tone) and does not describe the contents of its section. It is for the same reasons inferior to the descriptive rather than imperative "related [page type]" headings. It is an issue worth mentioning in the guideline as in the past, automated tools have misguidedly tried to standardise these headings. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 04:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your prompt response. Secondly, while granting that you make valid points regarding the relative merits of "see also" and "related [page type]" standing alone, I would argue that "see also" has become by general use in Wikipedia much more benign and much more meaningful than you give it credit for. That said, it isn't that big an issue for me. So, unless someone else jumps into the fray, your reversion will stand. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I agree entirely that the prevalence of "see also" is for the most part a spontaneous and natural phenomenon, but there have been conscious automated efforts at standardising, most notably through the use of WP:FORMATTER (corrected), and WP:AWB (as yet uncorrected). It's something of an irritant, so I stuck it in the guideline. Thank you for your friendly and efficient communication :) Skomorokh 04:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill & Tim's

Bogus Journey! (via) ^_^ -- Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

woah. I am so glad I have forgotten the 80s. Skomorokh 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template page

I'm about to go offline, but when I come back on, I'll try to work out where to put it for the best. Maybe you could ask Tony too what he thinks about a location, as I see he's mentioned it in various places. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for your response. Skomorokh 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: re danah boyd edits

My apologies. You are absolutely right. I was hurried and tired, when I RV'd your danah boyd edits. It was rude and misleading for me to do that. The one I was objecting to was your removal of the "disputed name" tag. The capitalization of the name has been hotly disputed for years. Right now, I don't know how to re-place that tag, but if you agree, I would appreciate it if you would do it. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the revert; articles are generally not tagged for such issues unless they are under active discussion, as there are many topics whose names have been under dispute for hundreds of years, and no tags are intended as permanent. If you want to start the discussion up again I'll happily join it, but otherwise I don't think restoring the tag would be productive. Regards, Skomorokh 14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Marvin

Because it showed up in my watchlist as a redlinked addition notated as "shouting". Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but why did you revert it after having seen the content? Skomorokh 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it until after the fact. An unsourced addition yielding a red link written in all capital letters seems a bit sketchy to me. I can't undo the revert, even after I saw what it was, but I wasn't going to go hunting down a source for a red link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reinventing the wheel

The article you linked to is a related subject, but is not the wheel itself. No mention of the Traversal of the infinite, e.g. Or of Aquinas. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but portions of the articles might overlap, so in the unlikely event that the existing article is superior, there would be no point in unnecessarily expending oneself. Skomorokh 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Presumably you are following this on Wikipedia Review? Some way into the article and not banned yet! You are a gentleman. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough no, I hadn't. I reread McTaggart over the holidays and watchlisted a bunch of redlinks with vague and improbable intentions of filling them in. Skomorokh 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Sorry to have missed that. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it would have been more amusing to see it executed. All the best - I see someone has already reported this on WP:ANI Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder who that could be. I'm off down the pub, see where this goes tomorrow. Skomorokh 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have pubs?Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA mentor question

Hi, I recently reviewed( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Avatar_%282009_film%29/GA1) Avatar (2009 film), passing it.Since it was my first, I'm wondering if you have any comments. I have a good knowledge of what a good article takes, but since it's my first review I'm looking to improve. Thanks in advance. Ktlynch (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Kt. I would be happy to give it a look. I should have time to do so this weekend, and I'll post my comments on the review page. Regards, Skomorokh 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise, I have had unexpected real life issues that will keep me away from the wiki for a bit. Hope to clear some time this week. Skomorokh 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the only free man on this train

Well I turned The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century from a red link into something. Perhaps you can turn it into something decent. I also wrote Architecture of Germany from scratch a few months ago. Now off to see that idiot user:Fram to see if he will delete them. Best The Rationalist (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I have long disagreed with this unperson mentality but I don't know how futile it would be to argue against it; I'll have a word with the deleting administrator. Thank you for contributing the article, and I appreciate the gesture of good faith. I'll try to expand and secure it and eternity of the world if I get a chance over the weekend. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look right?

Is this title in keeping with WP policy and precedent: George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States? It seems to me that the same concept could be expressed with much more simplicity. Are there other articles on similar topics to which this could be compared? Honestly, I am not aware of any other president whose terms are split into separate articles. Regardless, the title seems excessively long. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's cumbersome, but I don't see a plausible way of shortening it. You can't eliminate "as President of the United States" because he also served a first term as Governor of Texas; you can't shorten "President of the United States" without indulging in ambiguity or abbreviation; you can't shorten "George W. Bush" without inviting confusion with Bush père. I've had a quick look around and couldn't find any other "term" articles, which isn't surprising given that Obama is probably the most-covered individual in the encyclopaedia. WP:PRECISION would seem to be the relevant guideline, but I don't see that it offers any alternative here. You could ask at the talkpage or at the content noticeboard, but I'm afraid I'm not of much use. Regards, Skomorokh 16:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the points you make are completely valid, and most of them are things I thought about myself. This is not anything about which I am very exercised, the article is not on my watchlist, and I have no desire to work on any article relating to that man, because the desire to blank out his name and memory is simply too strong. So, I will leave it alone. It was something I came across by chance, and wondered what your thoughts might be. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spank jazz

I removed your ProD, based on the sheer number of references available online - 3 million on Bing, 13 Thousand on Google. No scholar Ghits, no news ghits, so an argument could be made at WP:AfD to delete it. The community, or at least 0.2 % of it, should decide. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you searched the phrase rather than just the combination of words? "spank jazz" gives 289 results on Bing and 13k on Google. The first page of google results yields only derivatives of WP articles, an album name, and references to the basketball team; excluding those you get 4,870 hits. I don't think this one's a keeper. Skomorokh 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of JWASM

Was wondering how you reached the conclusion that consensus was to redirect? Just using a rough CTRL-F search for "redirect", I counted only 10 occurrences of the word, not including the two in your close. There was an overwhelming consensus to delete the article. Were you thrown off by the textwalls posted by the 3 or 4 strong supporters of the article? I'm just really confused by a close that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Regards, Unit Anode 21:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the "long version" closing statement? I explained in it why I thought there was consensus to delete and why I redirected the page. Cheers, Skomorokh 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I simply didn't understand how you went from finding "consensus to delete" to simply creating a redirect. There wasn't consensus to redirect. Unit Anode 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As Pohta points out below, had the article been deleted, it would have been a valid redirect; the question then becomes "why should the history of this page be visible only to administrators?" As the problems with the old article were notability, sourcing and quality rather than for example POV/BLP/spam, there does not seem to be any compelling reason to do so. That is just my intuitive grasp of the issue, so if you disagree or want to establish the community norms on it, feel free to take the redirect to WP:RFD.

On the issue of procedure, you are right to point out that it is odd to find consensus for one course of action and then pursue another, so let me elaborate. We have as yet not moved to a proper Wikipedia:Articles for Discussion process, so issues of merges and redirects in AfD are often mishandled. The majority of editors (including those who favoured deletion) in this discussion did not address the possibility of redirecting. To some extent they are not to blame, as the suggestion to redirect to the target article only emerged late in a lengthy debate. Those that did address the redirect (for instance delete-pollers Nil Einne and OrangeDog) were supportive.

For these two reasons, I felt that redirecting would be the most reflective outcome of the discussion and within closing discretion in what was at times a convoluted discussion. I hope this explains my position clearly, but if not please ask and I will clarify any ambiguity. I can understand why you might have misgivings about it, so would not object in the slightest if you wished to put the close up for review. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a process wonk, so I won't be putting the redirect up for deletion. My problem was simply that there was a very clear consensus to delete, and it was redirected anyway. I strongly disagree with the close, as you yourself admit there wasn't consensus for that, but I'm not going to invite the same badgering from the JWASM supporters that happened at the AFD by DRVing your close. Unit Anode 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, as a lack of challenge creates precedents and practice makes policy, you are inviting an increased use of these sorts of discretionary closures by not putting it up for review. I think I was in the right in closing the discussion, but if that is a misunderstanding then the closure should not be allowed to stand, surely. Up to you, though. Regards, Skomorokh 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other commentary

Assume he deleted it, and I created a redirect. Now what? Pcap ping 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question of him, not you. There's a difference between deletion and redirecting. A big difference. There was consensus for one, but not the other. Now, I'm not going to reply to you anymore in this venue. I'm trying to have a conversation with Skomorokh. Unit Anode 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what Skomorokh did as a correct application of WP:IAR, even if not a literalist reading of consensus. On the other hand, what you, Unitanode, are doing on this page is described by WP:DICK. Pcap ping 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only post in this discussion remotely approaching WP:DICK, is this, your last post here. I don't know who you are -- or who you think you are -- but Skomorokh and I are having an adult conversation about a disagreement. You butted in. How that constitutes me being a WP:DICK is quite inexplicable. Unit Anode 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would have created a redirect the second after the deletion anyway, as it's an obvious choice. Feel free to take it to WP:RFD or WP:DRV now, and break the record for the longest WP:LAME discussion in the history of this site. Pcap ping 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, let's not get all ALLBLUECAPS behavioural guidelines in here. We have made our positions clear to one another, and if the content issue is to be taken further we know where to look. Let's disengage and go on our merry ways. Skomorokh 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I thought you tiptoed through that minefield very well, and gave a very rational and well thought out reason for what you did. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Elen. Skomorokh 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skomorokh. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. FYI, the discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cunard, that was helpful. The JWASM redirect should live or die on the viability of the target article, and at this point I have no strong feelings on the issue either as a content editor or as an administrator. I've also noticed your diligent work tagging AfDs that have had deletion reviews; it's very helpful and I hpe you continue. Cheers, Skomorokh 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]