User talk:Skomorokh/Գ

Hello

Just to let you know, Indian Basketball has been tagged as a copyvio. Thanks, Lets drink Tea 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked legit because of the wiki formatting, thanks for catching that. Skomorokh 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question

per wikify template. Thanks Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there, thanks. I watchlist pages I am interested in/actively editing so notifying me here is usually unnecessary. Regards, Skomorokh 04:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder about an open question. Thanks for all your help thus far, and take your time. :o) Redthoreau (talk)RT 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there, cheers. Skomorokh 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banksy

My work was not unreffed as you put it,,,see [[1]] this is a realible source and has been used on wikipedia before in other artist articles, so please dont removed good sourced work just because it does not full into your idea of who Banksy is,,,, I know who he is--86.11.100.50 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Talk:Banksy, last section. Regards, Skomorokh 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this ref then on a news website [[2]]--86.11.100.50 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rescue time

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Solidarity, Skomorokh 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrash

Good call here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bureaucrash&action=history Am looking through the news AND Google books to see what I can add. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I think I've got most of the news; should be more on Google Books and general Web though. I think this one is definitely rescuable given the weight of the Washington Times ref. Solidarity, Skomorokh 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you may boldly merge them, but will Bureaucrash be kept. The Washington Times is a dubious source. It's not the Washington Post. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. If Bureaucrash is deemed non-notable, then surely Eyre has no hope! I think the Times is more than reliable for straight-up reporting like this; it's a rather vanilla profile. Regards, Skomorokh 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

Thanks for your interest in Green Anarchism, Insurrectionary Anarchism, etc. Some of those articles need work, and it is good to have a little attention on them. --Rico (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you. I wish I knew more or had better access to sources on those topics; their coverage is really poor here. Skomorokh 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

How are you? Has anything notable occurred in my absence? Any controversies or set-tos I might have enjoyed? How goes the search for knowledge? I hope you are well. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it isn't the old anarchist back from his travails. Nothing major on the drama front this Spring; a catfight at Ayn Rand went all the way to the big leagues with the participants rewarded with topic bans all round (your correspondent laid low), London Action Resource Centre earned itself a deletion nomination and six-months full protection, and yesterday some ankle-biter called me on my propertarian tendencies at Talk:Joseph de Maistre. Elsewhere, the mercurial Anna Quist (talk · contribs) payed us a lamentably-brief visit; there was an aborted proposal for a worker's rights Wikiproject (as I'm sure you've noticed); the ATF got a facelift while activity has stalled; Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) took Alexander Berkman to GA and Malcolm X to FA; Cast (talk · contribs) and I have been shepherding Manifesto of the Sixteen through its growing pains; Yobmod (talk · contribs) proposed creating a standard format for lists of awards and nominations for your colleagues, the prototype of which is rotting here; SummerWithMorons (talk · contribs) is chipping away at Situationist International; and I still haven't written Ben Corea. So on balance, things are quietly proceeding towards a sum of all human knowledge I suppose; how was your time in the meat dimension? Skomorokh 16:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my libertarian facade was finally torn away to reveal the Neo-Nazi beneath! Skomorokh 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey Skomorokhi, I was wondering I noticed that the Ayan Rand article has some parts dedicated to Professor Sciabarra's work on Rand. Yes but no mention of N. O. Lossky. Well why? Also Sciabarra's work does much to depict Rand as an epistemological libertarian, meaning she was for knowledge that was free and not strictly locked in and controlled by institutions. So is everyone still sore of Lossky or can I finally add him to her article and source it per Professor Sciabarra, or is everyone still mad at Chris too? I mean it's not like he doesn't have point or two or he would be totally not in the article at all right? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again LoveMonkey. Yes, I agree it is odd that there is no mention of Lossky in the Rand article at the moment; I think it might have been removed due to lack of sources. The article is quite controversial at the moment, so I think it would be a good idea for you to propose your addition on a new section of Talk:Ayn Rand. I'll do some online research and see if I can find anything useful. Regards, Skomorokh 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a really good 3rd party take on Sciabarra & his Randian, Lossky connection.

On the more particular issues of her Russian and Soviet pasts, Sciabarra is far less convincing, turning a two- or three-course undergraduate minor in philosophy and a brief oral final examination (with N.O. Lossky) into the very foundations of Objectivism, Rand's updating of non-Marxist dialecticalism. Sciabarra strains to convince us that Rand even took Lossky's course, let alone that his views on the Aristotelian roots of the dialectic could have become the pillars of John Galt's worldview. [3] pg 2 Sciabarra was showing how Rand used and embraced Russian philosophy to "create" here Objectivism. Sciabarra shows how Rand's philosophy in it's core dialectial systemization is really just sobornost.

I must confess I am getting cold feet about working on the Rand article.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Joker/entertainer, Hey could you pretty please prune down the Alan Moore source in the Ayn Rand article. That way it will be objective and on point with the comment it is sourcing and I can't be called being selective. And again thanks...

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joker I'm done -here's an article written that kinda explains what I have been attempting to explain and shot for. Russian, Greek, Romanian whatever Orthodox is about the one thing, that one thing.

Libertarianism [4]. To free will pray for me a sinner. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent Democracy article

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Emergent Democracy, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Will try to improve and other to help improve the article. --Joi (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Skomorokh

RE : Talk:Ayn Rand

Replied on my talkpage. Thanks for bringing that to my attention - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Skomorokh 10:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; probly belonged in my LiveJournal instead (and indeed ended up there). But it's true. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't doubt it :) Thanks for being understanding, I appreciate it. Regards, Skomorokh 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass

You made a comment about length in regards to the downgrading of the Critical Mass article. What do you suggest to improve that aspect? Shorter, longer, only certain sections, etc? Agreed on the comprehensiveness comment. Thanks for your input.Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I meant that for the topic (i.e. for the amount of coverage Critical Mass has received), the article was quite short and could cover more aspects of the topic in greater depth. Sorry I didn't leave a comment at the talkpage, but when sorting though hundreds of articles I tend to get lazy and leave just an edit summary. Mahalo, Skomorokh 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just didn't want to add or remove info depending on which one caused the drop.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for History of the Han Dynasty

Hello. I responded to you on the FAC page for History of the Han Dynasty. I was wondering if you would mind fully reviewing the article and supporting or rejecting it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schapiro pages

Nice work. I don't see anything of concern, though it is a little out of my main area. FYI, I've started work on translating the "Manifesto of the Sixteen" at collectivereason.org, after Cast mentioned it to me. Libertatia (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look; I'm a little wary about patching articles like those together from snatches of mentions on Google Books, but it's better than nothing I suppose. That's great news you're working on a translation of the Manifesto, I've being trying to track down a physical copy to no avail. Skomorokh 10:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have particular topics that need deeper archival digging, just give me a heads-up. I've got plenty on my plate, but I'm also digging up new stuff every day and adding a couple of search terms is no big deal. Libertatia (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cohn-Bendit

Hi. Could you have a look at Talk:Daniel Cohn-Bendit#Allegations of Paedophilia. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I hate these kinds of discussions. I'm travelling at the moment but I'll try to get to it sometime during the week. Regards, Skomorokh 10:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ayn rand

give me a break...semi-protection? you, snowded, and tallnapoleon are far superior to me me in quoting wikipedia policy. there is no wikipedia policy on ayn rand's status as a philosopher. i will not reiterate all the "pro" philosopher or "anti" philosopher arguments. they all have merit.Brushcherry (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're talking about. I don't think I've addressed you or replied to one of your comments lately. I don't favour the semi-protection of the Ayn Rand article at the moment, I know there is no specific Rand policy, and I don't have a strong opinion on the "philosopher" issue, if that helps. Regards, Skomorokh 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK twofer

On 28 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Alexander Schapiro, and Sascha Schapiro, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Skomorokh 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas

On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Golos Truda

On March 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Golos Truda, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello :) I've been working on the Theodore Kaczynski article for quite some time, and I have seen it really develop. Given your experience with writing and improving articles, I just thought I would ask you to work with me in raising this article to feature status. I think the article is already in good shape. I could only see it as having some more pictures and sources to look better. Anyway, I could help you in whatever you think it's needed. Maziotis (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I'll have someone restore it. Basically, I was dealing with someone known for outing, and didn't know how liberal I'd been with my personal information. Thanks for pointing that out. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which edit summary? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the editnotice. On it. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy, thanks. Skomorokh

Atlas Shrugged article

Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Skomorokh 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

That was a joke "comrade". Lolz Madhava 1947 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything which advances the inevitable triumph of the workers'! Solidarity, Skomorokh 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it inevitable. Its something we need to organize and work towards! Madhava 1947 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

{{admin!}} Please restore Sakura Sogoro to my userspace at User:Skomorokh/Sogoro. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done PeterSymonds (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Skomorokh 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You're removing a lot of info, first of all. Second, there is no need to add what you're adding. I'm restoring per request and I'd ask that you stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of bitey info about a process that has been dead for over a year. There is a need to signify that the bot is blocked, so that editors who come to address one of its actions are aware that neither it nor its operator is in a position to respond. On whose request are you restoring? By what authority do you ask? Skomorokh 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the users request. You don't see people coming and changing random things in your userspace so I ask you show the same courtesy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our banning policy, the banned editor's userspaces are to be "replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages". Now are you seriously expecting me to believe that your proxy editing on behalf of a disgraced banned editor ought to be respected rather than policy? Skomorokh 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That says they may, not they are to be. There's no need. Again, you're also removing lots of useful information. Unfortunately, I have no time to argue with you about it, however, I found the request to restore the page reasonable and have done so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for taking the time to review the matter, your majesty. How unsurprising it is for an administrator to show up at the drop of a hat to lend legitimacy to an imperious, hostile and unaccountable fiefdom. Good day, Skomorokh 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Cheers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice the thread on UT:BCB, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:AN#Dispute over presentation of User talk:BetacommandBot. –xeno (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake. I trust you to investigate the matter reasonably, Xeno, I'm going back to editing articles. Ciao, Skomorokh 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do. Just for transparency, I've moved a comment off your talk page because it really belonged at the AN. Hope that's ok. Cheers, –xeno (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [5] Wiggy, Skomorokh seems not to care about this particular issue anymore (besides, he's in agreeance with you - unless you're replying to Rjd) , it might be a good idea to add your comments to the AN thread I've linked you to. –xeno (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I follow. Just got caught at cross editing. Apologies to the affected. Thanks for your help. Wiggy! (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. =) –xeno (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine that done

I seem not to understand Wikipedia though I do not have bitterness to ones frequently reverting me. You have reading material on matter? Or IDO coupon? Linguistixuck (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for metaphysics/epistemology/ethics/politics

The citatiation/clean-up/NPOV templates on these articles are aging - these articles are the neglected step children of the main article. Any good work to improve the reporting on the topics will "pay-off" better in the less-neglected main article. I'm not worried so much about article length, so long as it reads as an encyclopdic summary and not a full blown course. I chose "Content Fork" as my rational as that is the simplest description of what is going on, it is the same content, perhaps going into more detail but for sure with less scrutiny in terms of quality. Karbinski (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Skomorokh. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Awickert (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!!!

You are my great benefactor!!! I will be trying to help wikipedia ever sense!!! Much love for the New Year! Linguistixuck (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it okay to clear controversy from my talk page? I do not want to look criminal!!! :O Linguistixuck (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to remove comments on your talk page once you've read them, but it is best to archive them for transparency reasons. Much love to you too, Skomorokh! 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism

On 12 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queens of the Stone Age articles by importance

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Queens of the Stone Age articles by importance]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, removing the tag will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Koyen

Nothing to change. Just a head's up for future closes that SNOW has been discouraged. We now close early only by criteria in WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea; cheers for the heads-up and I'll discontinue for the closes ahead. Skomorokh 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Die Anarchisten

On April 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Die Anarchisten, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History restoration

{{admin!}} Please restore all non-problematic deleted revisions of Heathian anarchism as that article has been recreated. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 06:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two revisions deleted, one is a redirect and the other a move-entry. While they could be restored, I fail to see the point in doing so. Regards So Why 06:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's unusual as the content of the article is original to Wikipedia but has today been reintroduced from a WP fork. Can you have a look in the related pages? Skomorokh 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Skomorokh 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article, as far as I can tell from the move log, was moved to Spencer Heath which still exists. Unless you want to merge those two articles, I see no way to untangle which revisions should go into which article's history. You might want to ask Owen (talk · contribs), who deleted the article twice, whether he remembers where the other versions (if any exist) are located at. Regards So Why 07:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. Mahalo, Skomorokh 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism

I am clearing the participant list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism due to inactivity. Please add yourself again if you want to participate. --Karbinski (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]