User talk:Skomorokh/漆

BTW, thanks

Your suggestion of FACC worked out brilliantly well. I nominated the McGraw article, and it was accepted. There's a few of us that are now going to attempt to get it to featured status. I'm supremely glad we got past our initial bumpy introduction. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Sincerely, Skomorokh 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA icons

Thanks for taking the time to give me the update regarding previous discussions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry I couldn't be more precise. Regards, Skomorokh 23:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin!

{{Adminhelp}} ...is this cool? Skomorokh 05:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Werdan7^{T @} 05:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may not be aware of it, but there was recently some discussion about making more specific types of {{helpme}} ([1]). Most of the helpme requests don't require an admin, and anyone who's advanced enough to know about this template can also figure out another way to contact an admin. (I did this so the bots in #wikipedia-en-help wouldn't think Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators needed help. If it turns out there is consensus for this category, I can change the bots to ignore it.)--Werdan7^{T @} 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the swift response. However, just because someone can probably figure out how to contact an admin does not mean we should not make it easier for them to do so. Would it be so difficult to have the bots ignore it? Skomorokh 05:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be easier for the user, but for the admins, it's just another place they need to check. During some times of the day, {{helpme}} requests can be up for several hours. By decreasing the amount of people who can respond, you only increase the time they wait. There would also be the problem of people who only think they need an admin, and would wait longer for nothing.--Werdan7^{T @} 05:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's don't need to check anywhere; it's a volunteer program like any other here; let's see if it attracts any attention before cutting it off at the knees, eh? By focusing the help request, we make things more efficient by not wasting regular user's time in going to the helpee's page and reading their request before realising they can do nothing and directing the helpee towards WP:AN, and by freeing admin helpers from where they are not specifically required to where their help is more urgently needed. The idea that there would be a significant number of people erroneously thinking they need admin help seems very much in tension with your earlier opinion about the level of clue needed to be aware of this template in the first place. Again, I appreciate your interest but tt does sound like you're looking for reasons to oppose this. Respectfully, Skomorokh 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too, I'm just not sure how you see this fitting into the grand scheme of things. The only time I've come across a helpme request that was actually a request for admin help was where a user used that instead of the {{Unblock}} request after getting a {{second chance}}. Which would be more of an issue with the wording of that template. Do you have any scenarios in mind here? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; I've had occasion when I needed help with a specific, but rather trivial admin-only task that could not be done efficiently using other automated methods such as {{editprotected}} {{db}} etc. I figure I'm not the only one, and that such affairs are insufficiently important to post on the admin noticeboards, taking up valuable admin time and attention when any admin will do (i.e. no specialist knowledge or skills required). Given the high rate of activity – particularly concerning important issues – at the noticeboards, any uncomplicated measure that helps streamline things ought to be welcomed, imo. If we could have the bots post a little message in admin IRC when {{adminhelp}} is used, I think the process could be very effective. Sincerely, Skomorokh 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, for one. I've added it to my dashboard alongside the other "regular help" template. Assuming I'm online, I'll see requests within minutes of them being posted. The differentiation is a good thing, and I support having both cats available on the Help page. Keeper ǀ 76 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opining, Keeper76, and I'm glad you like it. Werdan7 (talk · contribs) identifies a problem with bots and IRC. Is there an admin IRC channel we could get the bots to pop a message into once this template is used? Skomorokh 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my reputation (deserved) for chattiness, I've never once used IRC, and I never will, find it to be completely evil as it relates to Wikipedia. So I have no idea. Keeper ǀ 76 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you know someone who does, right? ;) Skomorokh 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should work fine just not making it a sub-cat, no? Oh, and yes, there is an IRC admin channel, not that I've ever been in it. –xeno (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it is the very definition of a subcat, non? This seems like a trivial workaround for a bot to handle. Skomorokh 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad speedy deletion -There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim

There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim, see Maxim's talk page,http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Maxim Quoting from Maxim's talk page:

"Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is at User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section.

I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing? (Anna Quist (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Feel free to publish it. Maxim(talk) 13:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)"

(Anna Quist (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Noted, thanks. We'll let the viewing admin decide. In the meantime, please stop spamming the website with lies about made up organizations – it's a quick way to get banned from here. Sincerely, Skomorokh 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

(Anna Quist (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It may well be false. Can you provide any evidence of academic articles, mainstream newspapers or notable anarchist organisations who recognise yours? Skomorokh 08:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have read the new AI-wikipage very well. There are several references to independent large newspapers, anarchist journals outside Ai, and independent websites. I suggest you read the AI-wikipage before making any judgements

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have read the Anarchist International page; it has no references to reliable sources and will certainly be deleted unless some are added. "Independent websites" are usually self-published and do nothing to establish notability. Regards, Skomorokh 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Linking to commercial sites

Good call, my bad. I was just reverting all the reverts of the bot that User:Fconaway performed. The bot was performing good edits, and they were reverted, so I figured it would be best to just revert the batch of them, and then editors can determine if the links are even needed. Thanks for the note. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No worries, Skomorokh 08:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the anarcho-capitalist articles

It is nice to see there are others out there taking on this responsibility. Keep up the good work! :) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was unexpected; why thank you, and I appreciate your work there too. You may want to consider joining us at the anarchism task force, where you can get help with any anarchism-related efforts you're engaged in. Regards, Skomorokh 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim May

I appreciate your attempt to police Tim May's page, but the quotes are accurate. I understand that you might not find google groups links sufficient evidence, but generally speaking Mr. May is not terribly concealing on this subject. Those postings go back many, many years and really are his writing. I would simply email him and post the contents of such a thing, but that would constitute original research. (Or could original research be considered sufficient to support the inclusion of content though not acceptable for inclusion itself?)

I think it is absolutely crucial to reflect Mr. May's opinions since they are so far from the mainstream and such a big part of his current impact. Given the virulence of his current opinions and his apparent lack of shame about them, and their very long standing, it would be completely unreasonable to whitewash such an important part of his biography. It would be like concealing the fact that George W. Bush is a supporter of the war in Iraq or not mentioning that Mother Theresa was a Roman Catholic.

Would there be some sort of way of including this sort of information without causing trouble? Pmetzger (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally sympathetic, but we are extremely cautious about posting negative info about WP:BLP's. Is there no third-party, independent reputable source that covers this? Try searching Google News/Scholar/Books to see if something comes up. I'm afraid that if we can't come up with something that meets sourcing guidelines, the content has very little chance of staying in. Thanks for your commendable interest in documenting this, Skomorokh 13:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit unreasonable that a person's own public comments, which they do not deny or repudiate, do not constitute a reliable source. Lets say that a public figure self published a book of racist comments on paper -- would quoting it to get his opinions be considered against the rules? That seems way beyond what is intended.

I don't think Mr. May would deny having made any of these comments or think of their inclusion in his biography as "negative" -- only those of us who don't feel that all the black people in the US should be exterminated would view them as negative. So, the problem is, this is not a small bit of his biography we can readily leave out, any more than we could leave David Duke's opinions out of his biography page etc.

The intent of the rules is to prevent libelous comments from being included, not accurate ones that are highly distasteful. The reason for requiring "reputable" sources is entirely to make sure the data is accurate. In this case, the data is quite clearly accurate, the only question is how we demonstrate that without original research. Posting his own words seemed reasonable to me. If that's not sufficient, I think that you should work with me to find a reasonable solution here, we cannot simply leave the encyclopedia entry inaccurate and flawed by leaving out a major portion of the man's life. Pmetzger (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on Google Groups right now under the name P Metzger and run around making nasty comments, but we wouldn't want them in your Wikipedia article, would we? Or put it another way; if May's alleged racism is so noteworthy, how come no-one of note has commented on it? You argue that because we are just printing May's own words, it can't be libelous or insulting to May, so shouldn't be a concern. Not so:

Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.
— WP:SELFPUB

I can't imagine any material you have in mind not violating at least number 1, 3, and especially 4. You are going to have a hard time changing Wikipedia policy on this, so I again suggest that you try and find coverage of this in reliable sources. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, legally speaking, in the US where Mr. May resides, truth is never considered libelous. Further, I suspect that if he were aware of the situation he would have no objection whatsoever to the inclusion of the material -- he is proud of his beliefs and feels no shame about them. The question, then, becomes one of how the rules work, not of whether the material is libelous or if May would object to it.

Considering the rules specifically, I think there is more here than you do. "Contentious" refers to claims made by the party that would be potentially a problem for other people, not for the writer himself, "claims about third parties" involve specific claims like "joe killed frank", not the sort of material involved here that makes claims few would take seriously, and "events not directly related to the subject" is again intended to prevent "joe killed frank" type inclusions that potentially libel third parties, not to prevent a person's opinions from being included in their biography merely because they aren't opinions about themselves.

Anyway, I would ask that, rather than simply saying "no" here, that you try working with me to find something acceptable so that the information about the nature of Mr. May's opinions can be reflected in his biography. Failing that, I'd ask that you help me open up the discussion to a wider forum so that we can solicit opinions on how to deal with this. Someone beyond you or I might be able to come up with an acceptable solution here. More minds are better. Throwing up our hands and saying "there is nothing we can do" is not sufficient. This is supposed to be an accurate encyclopedia, not a bowdlerized collection of inoffensive facts. We owe it to the public to work harder to find an answer. Given that you involved yourself by reverting the change, I think you have a moral obligation to assist in searching for a solution.Pmetzger (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such thing, but as I am a good egg I accept that you have a point. The place for this to go is the biography of living persons noticeboard. I'm willing to start a discussion there if you're willing to abide by the outcome. Deal? Skomorokh 14:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. This is a consensus system, after all. I just feel like there has to be a better answer than "leave true and important information out". If we get more heads together, maybe someone can come up with a reasonable way of handling situations like this. If you can, please provide as much context about what the dilemma is as possible -- I'll fill in any gaps when you are done. And thank you. Pmetzger (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can you please post a link here to the portion of that page where you raise the issue? It is very very big as you know. Pmetzger (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I started a section yesterday here about the appropriateness of keeping the info on the talkpage of the article even, so I'll put it in there. I have to warn you that I am more liberal than most about including this sort of material, but we shall see how it goes. Skomorokh 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a summary of the discussion; let me know if I have misrepresented your perspective on this. Skomorokh 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite fair. I expanded the section to explain the dilemma a bit better. BTW, as a pure aside, my strong suspicion is that Tim May would actually welcome having his biography depict his political beliefs. The problem, as you note, is the lack of third party attestation.Pmetzger (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, let's continue this at the noticeboard shall we. Skomorokh 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Watson (anarchist)

If you think my tag "orphan" is incorrect, you are free to remove it. I checked "what links here" and got a null result. I am not immeidiately make the changes you request, as my main objective is to improve David Watson (creationist) which is currently subject to an AFD. The problem with the old title was that "author" applied equally to several other people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the article is orphaned is because you orphaned it. If you are not prepared to clean up after your moves, it's probably best not to have someone else make them. The incoming links for the anarchist you have now directed to a disambiguation page, misdirecting readers. With all due respect for your intention to improve the creationist article, if you create a problem the responsibility is yours to fix it. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have I have altered all the pages that you pointed me to, except those related to the AFD for David Watson (creationist) and user pages. You may like to check this again however. I agree that the article is not an orphan and will remove that tag, if it is still there. I evidently did the wrong search when I got a null result. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it checks out, thanks for taking care of that, Peter. Skomorokh 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrimethInc. sidebar

Regarding your request for a sidebar without a hide/show drop menu, I may have just the thing you're looking for. Based on Template:EarlyBuddhism, I briefly toyed around with one for anarchist art (User:Cast/art template; the anarchism and the arts article could use a little work, and I toyed with this while considering how to improve it.) Perhaps you can engineer it to suit your purposes. It is smaller than most sidebars, and so is well suited to the CrimethInc. template, which doesn't require many fields.--Cast (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's what I was hoping for. I've sandboxed them here and will begin symbiosis shortly; you're more than welcome to tinker if you feel like doing so. Mahalo, Skomorokh 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Property is theft

Hi,

I appreciate your efforts on this article. Regardless of your personal beliefs, your edits always seemed to be aimed at the best interest of Wikipedia. Edit warring benefits no one, and I spent considerable energy trying to prevent it. I was pleased that user:EmbraceParadox, although not happy with the Branden reference, was focused on finding a compromise that suited the article. Once the current protection is lifted from the page, which unfortunately struck right after Jemmy's second rv in just a few hours, I will try to find a way to resolve this - either mediation, or RFC (suggestions would be appreciated). I will try for the abbreviated version of the Branden criticism that you created, along with the Marx material. This shouldn't be so difficult. Best, Wishes, --Steve (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great Steve, happy to hear it. Sorry if I came on a little strong on your talkpage. Skomorokh 10:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersoldier

For the record I would have changed my vote this morning based on the new version, althoguh we really got to find some decent references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, but I think the state of the article shouldn't be a big determinant of whether the topic should be included in the encyclopaedia; if you can imagine a terrible article on a worthy topic could be rewritten in an acceptable way, you might considering !voting to stub rather than to delete in future. Regards, Skomorokh 10:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Zazaban and Shomorok about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the note Anna. Two pieces of advice;

Articles which have been deleted several times before are often viewed with hostility by the Wikipedia community, who feel that the writer is ignoring consensus. You might want to make sure you address all the problems brought up in the deletion discussion in writing your new article.
There were copyright concerns about the last version; you cannot include copy-pasted material from other sources such as the Anarchy.no page, although you can of course include brief quotes as long as you label them as such.

Best of luck with the article, Skomorokh 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take some time - there is no rush

I will involve as many relevant people as possible. I will take some time - there is no rush. (Anna Quist (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Great, just note that you can't keep an article in your userspace indefinitely, as Wikipedia is not a webhost. Regards, Skomorokh 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Quist

She is now claiming that the deletion debate is somehow invalid. Her main reasoning seems to be that it is so because it contradicts her own opinion on the matter. Zazaban (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Skomorokh 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and the post following it. Zazaban (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate was closed on the grounds of WP:SNOW. There's no way in hell the article is going back to the namespace unless it makes it through WP:DRV, which is unlikely. Sit tight and keep an eye on her contribs and things should play out in the usual manner; WP is not as tolerant as Per Bylund if you see where I'm going with this. Skomorokh 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cavlan

Thanks for the note, I've revised my comment on the deletion noticeboard. JBsupreme (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. My commendations on your integrity in being willing to revisit your comment. Regards, Skomorokh 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anna Quist

It think its quite obvious that Anna Quist (talk · contribs)'s sole ambition at wikipedia is self-promotion, hoaxing the influence of the 1-2 member AI, canvassing and disruptions across various articles and talk pages. Has there been a proposal for block or ban of this user? --Soman (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely sympathise with this sentiment. I suggested as much to the administrative caste but no-one seemed interested. As I suggested to Zazaban above, we ought to watch this user's contributions, warn them if any edits are inappropriate, and if your suspicions are correct, this editor won't last long. Solidarity, Skomorokh 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just give me a message if there is a new ANI case or similar, and i'll chip in. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Stay vigilant, Skomorokh 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page

I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent .

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Noted, Anna; welcome to the task force. I am willing to help with writing an article on the supposed Anarchist International if you can show me non-trivial coverage of the AI in sources independent of the AI which are peer-reviewed scholarly publications, or news agencies with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm afraid my Norwegian reading comprehension is not very well developed, so English sources are preferred. As you claim the AI is the largest anarchist organization in the world, this shouldn't be too difficult, given that it is no problem for all the other anarchist organizations we have articles on. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD Closure

[3] - The article is a piece of crap, by the way :-) - And, instead of writing it in the closure, you should've told me personally rather than writing it there. It's considered general etiquette. Thanks. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you close an AfD, remember to remove the AfD message from the article afterwards. I'll leave it there for you to remove. Cheers again! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, I assume you monitor discussions you start rather than assuming you perform drive-by nominations. "The article is a piece of crap" is never grounds for deletion; nominating on these grounds is disruptive and a waste of volunteers time when you could just fix it instead. If you think a topic is not-notable, it's polite to mention in the nomination the outcome of the research you took into the topic; it doesn't seem like you did much in this case. Sorry for not attending to the afd message, that was negligent of me. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

...Wow. Zazaban (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]