User talk:Skomorokh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Your concerns with Anarchism in Ukraine
If you wouldn't mind, could you give some specific suggestions or critiques on Talk:Anarchism in Ukraine? Wyatt Riot 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I've responded on Talk:Anarchism in Ukraine and also changed the tag to something I think we could both agree on.
- Also, a word of friendly advice: removing anything from your User Talk page, except to archive it or remove some forms of blatant vandalism, is itself viewed by many around here as a form of vandalism. I don't think anybody would have a problem with removing a welcome tag as you did, so don't worry about it for now. It's just that your User page is considered yours (within limits) to do with what you will, but your User Talk page is for other editors to communicate with you and also to comment on your editing behavior, both good and bad. Wyatt Riot 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul is, indeed, dead
As you'll see in the editor's note when you edit the introductory graf of Paul is dead, the joke about whether Paul McCartney is dead is really, really, really, really old. Please don't embarrass yourself by repeating it. - DavidWBrooks 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yawn.Skomorokh 18:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anaximander
First, thank you for hour help with the article. I have a few questions or concerns though:
- In some wiki, it is agreed that no footnotes should appear in the lead section of an article. You inserted a verification needed tag regarding the claim that he was the first to have written down his studies, notion that is explained and referenced in the biography section. Does this tag only mean someone should look up the reference provided?
- The statement about things returning to their element of origin evokes indeed the Christian phrase about returning to dust. Is the verification intended for the works of Aristotle, Euripides or the last phrase? Of course, there is nothing in history that will link the last one with Anaximander's fragment. However, I think that their meaning is sufficiently close to have it mentioned in an encyclopedia, don't you agree?
- Now the Multiple worlds section poses a challenge. There is indeed a logical relation with the apeiron and the infinity of worlds. Since, unlike Earth, eternity has no beginning and no end, Anaximander viewed the universe as a succession of worlds, that appear and disappear out of the limitless, according to Cicero. Apeiron not only refers to matter as being undefined, but as time as being eternal. This concept seems as mystical as is is scientific. Problem is, I don't remember in what books I got the information linking it all to the apeiron. The last statement refers as much to the questions that religions have debated regarding eternity, as to the theories debated in modern physics with the Big Bang and other issues on the Ultimate fate of the universe. There are still some theories that claim that universes appear and disappear. There are even theories on parallel universes. Any advice on what should be done then?
I want to develop the Known works and References sections. Do you know a similar article that would provide a good example? The conventions in French and English are different so I need a model. By the way the Known works should be entirely changed to something more standard, right?Done. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Regards. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Baudrillard Article
Firstly, sincere thanks for the recent substantive modifications to the Baudrillard article. Regarding the undoing of my revisions, please see my rational for those modifications here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.160.140.22 .. Peace.
- simply put the claim the user is trying to make money from Baudrillard's death is a personal attack - meaning it is not based upon the *content* of the photography but about the person(s) posting information .. WP:Attack states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." In addition, the comments 'Abou didee' makes are unverified/unverifyable, this contravening another WP rule. Really the list of violations is quite long. Also, the points Abou didee makes against the user and EGS were raised several times (evidenced on the EGS talk page) and were resolved. Abou didee is not abinding by those resolutions arrived at through discussion of AfD regarding EGS. If this constant reversal of edits is going to continue, then I will ask for formal mediation via RfC.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.140.22 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
- You will find that I too have agreed with the reasoned opinion of Goodlucca regarding the Baudrillard image. I still find Abou Didee's comments libelous and in violation of WP:Point, etc. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to engage in this debate and for using the forum of my user talk page. Thank you for making yours available for this discussion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.140.22 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] clumsy phrasing
Hi, Just trying to keep awards out of the lede sentence. Encyclopedia articles, in my opinion, don't normally intersperse awards into an opening sentence. If a person has won a number of awards, we get sentences like: John Smith is a Grammy-winning actor, a Juno-winning singer, an Oscar-winning filmmaker, and a ...... ///I argue that the first sentence should give their key info. As far as the other content, the "latter-day auteur"...that is more like the language from a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article. Nazamo 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please don't make personal attacks
While I appreciate you restoring the vandalism to the Jose Luis Borges article, I'm afraid that your edit summary: [1] was completely inappropriate. Please remain civil and do not make personal attacks even on vandals. Thanks, Gwernol 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] March 2007
With regards to your comments on User talk:Gwernol: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
