User talk:Skomorokh/četiri

[edit] Wikiversity

"It is standard practice to tag Wikipedia articles which lack assertions of notability so as to protect worthy articles from being deleted; my edit was entirely in the spirit of advancing the encyclopedia." <-- Wikipedia is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Foundation and its goals. The fact that Wikiversity is a sister project of Wikipedia makes it notable and important that there be a Wikipedia page about it. You are just being disruptive by pretending that some other criteria of notability need to be applied to this page. Please stop trying to be a wikilawyer and start trying to help the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you be forthcoming with reliable independent sources which establish the notability of the subject. Madonna's cat isn't notable by virtue of its association with Madonna. The criteria of notability is very clearly outlined in WP:N; you might direct your attention particularly to the passage which states Notability requires objective evidence. Stating a given subject is associated with another notable sunject is simply inadequete. If Wikiversity is so obviously notable, where are the sources? Skomorokh ^incite 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You are being a troll here, and have used up your 3 reversion. If you want to keep tagging this page for notability, please use the discussion page for this article if you really do have a problem with the notability of this article. Adding this tag is disruptive to the editing process and it doesn't add anything new that hasn't been said many times over. BTW, if you want me to list several notability criteria regarding Wikiversity, including remarks and articles about the project by journals outside of the sphere of the Wikimedia projects, I would be glad to do that. --Robert Horning (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Thompson

Notability asserted. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you have a moment...

This might be outside your bailiwick, but if you have a moment, can you take a look at the two refs I just added to The Royal Tenenbaums article, and tell me why they are formatted wrong? For the life of me, I cannot figure out why they are screwed up. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries; if you want to create an external link with a description, you need to copypaste the full url, including the http://. Your refs both started www. Should be ok now. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bloody hell! I knew it would be something stupid like that... I should just go to bed. Thanks for the assist. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William S. Burroughs

Hey, I decided to try moving the wikiquote box and see if that would fix the blank space. Well, it did... at least for me. Tell me if it looks ok for you. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me in Firefox high res; some editors choose to position it in See also or External links, but I doubt it's a policy violation either way. Skomorokh ^incite 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought about moving it down to external links, but decided to try moving it up first, and see how that looked. I liked it, so I left it there. And, yeah, I've seen it done both ways.

Great job, by the way, cleaning up that legacy section. I was just getting started on that, deleting that pointless comment about him being "controversial," and citing the "23 enigma" bit. I am really not certain that it is all that important, in the bigger scheme of things, but I'd just seen the article (completely by chance, as it happens) yesterday, so I figured I might as well put in the refs. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It gladdens my heart to see elusive stub-like paragraphs sourced like that, nicely done. Skomorokh ^incite 16:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you.

Say, do you have any Situationist articles on your watchlist? I am trying to figure out why the {{Situationist}} template/infobox (whatever it's called) looks like crap on every single page. I cannot get it to stop crowding the text. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I'm going to have a look at the innards of Template:Anarchism which works beautifully, and see if the SI template can be similarly arranged. Skomorokh ^incite 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Completed. What do you think? Skomorokh ^incite 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Splendid work! What did you do exactly? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a philosopher, not a greasemonkey - I just copy/paste! Skomorokh ^incite 18:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That works for me! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Nicod Prize

Thanks for helping cleaning up the article. I restored the section title as See also per WP:GTL and reverted a link in this section (Institut Jean Nicod) that you accidentally removed. The Institute is the host and official provider of information on the prize and its article is not linked in the text. --DarTar (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry, my mistake. I'd much prefer if the link were integrated with the text but for now, you're quite right. WP:GTL does not justify your alteration to the section title (it does not preclude naming the see also section otherwise, acknowledges the lesser-used "Related topics", and is a guideline rather than policy) but there is no strong argument in favour of either version. I appreciate your vigilance, though. Skomorokh ^incite 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your merger template at Cyber Monday

I'm going to remove the merger template, which you put up about an hour ago, because:

• You didn't put the corresponding merger template at Black Friday (shopping)
• You didn't start a discussion (explain why the merger is a good idea) at the talk page of either article
• Both articles are well cited, and there is NO overlap in the citations
• The articles I've been reading and adding as cites to the Cyber Monday article don't talk about Black Friday, except in passing, so I think you need to find articles that cover both, in depth, before you repost any merger template, to support any proposed merger.

Also, for what it's worth, I've fixed the link in the template, which was (erroneously) to Black Friday, a disambiguation page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing the merge, nor would I support it; I merely added the template to respect the vocal desire for a merge at the Afd. I don't think keep as a separate article was the consensus position, and I agree with your closing comments.

As to your points above, I dealt with 1), the Afd discussion suffices to get things moving for 20, and 3) and 4) are questions for the merits of the action rather than the merits of removing the template. Please reconsider restoring the merger template, and thank you for correcting my mistake, and moreso for your hard work on the article thus far. Skomorokh ^incite 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think that it's incumbent on whoever puts up a merger template to also start a discussion; otherwise, we're really into mind-reading. While someone could, for example, copy the "merger" comments in the AfD to the talk page, I think the article has significantly improved (and certainly changed) since those comments were made, so I'm not at all sure that even their authors would feel they're still relevant.

In sum, while I think that a merger would be wrong, I also respect the right of editors to propose it. If someone else puts up the merger template and does start a discussion, I certainly would not take the template down until enough time had elapsed to determine consensus. If no one else does put the merger template up, or post to the talk page about the merger possibilities, then it seems to me that things have turned out relatively well, and everyone can focus elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is a reasonable solution; I just didn't want editors to be disenfranchised, even out of laziness, as a result of a technicality. Best of luck with the article. Skomorokh ^incite 23:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter Thompson

I'm glad you described "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" as a novel; for decades bookstores have been filing it under "Sociology" or "Journalism" or god knows what. Of course you're right that F&LinLV wasn't Thompson's only book but I thought it was important to put it at the top of the article in any case since it is his masterpiece, of course; it's his "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "Moby Dick," and towers over anything else he did. By the way, just as an aside, I heard him say (in conversation) that he hated Terry Gilliam's movie version. Throughout the film, the wrong words in practically every sentence were deftly emphasized. Skymasterson (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the lede definitely needed to mention the work. I saw the film a few months ago, and though I'm a big fan of Depp and Del Toro, I found it fell rather flat, so it's interesting that you say Thompson hated it. I heard Depp lived in his basement for a few weeks while trying to get into the role, shame the dialogue was mangled. Skomorokh ^incite 03:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dashiell Hammett

If you've a moment, can you take a peak over there, and tell me what you think of the work I've done today. I tell you, I would much rather work on my script. This Wikipedia-writing is for the birds. But, I am bound and determined to get that article in shape it is really rather pathetic. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work overall, it's great to see an article full of speculation and half-assed treatment get referenced. A fer quibbles though, and these are just guidelines rather than policy:

1. Always attribute quotations unless they're by the subject of the article, even when the quotes are referenced. Your "shadow" refs are an example of this. Instead of "quote"<ref>Shadow, ''Book'', 19xx</ref>, use 'Shadow refers to this as "quote".<ref>Shadow, ''Book'', 19xx</ref>.
2. Unless quotes are POV or a particularly striking description, it's better to integrate them into the article. Example: "Dave, who has two felony convictions, is the Scottish foreign minister." (Source, 19xx)<ref>reference</ref> is not really an appropriate quotation as we can just as easily say 'Dave is the Foreign Minister of Scotland, and has twice been convicted on felony charges'.<ref>Source, 19xx</ref> However, if the quote is something evaluative like "Dave is the most amazing foreign minister ever and his felony convictions were heinous miscarriages of justice that make a mockery of the American justice system", then it should be kept as a quote rather than a referenced statement. See Wikipedia:Quotations for extended guidelines for this.
3. You moved one of the references (CLUES) to the external links section. Per WP:EL, external links should preferably be integrated as refs; external links should basically be restricted to unreliable but valuable/interesting sources. A public journal is probably reliable and if so, should be cited inline where appropriate.
4. I probably would have kept the info on Hammett's portrayal in fiction, but moving to the talkpage while deciding what to do and how to source it is cool too.

Be warned: improving crap articles is addictive! I'd recommend that in the interest of your script you heed none of my previous recommendations, log off Wikipedia and spend the evening drinking White Russians! Skomorokh ^incite 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did log off, but I did not drink any White Russians---I don't drink vodka, y'see. But, I can come up with any number of concoctions with a bottle of Irish whiskey. By the way, was the White Russians suggestion a roundabout reference to Hammett? See this [[1]] previous version of the article for explanation. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in Cuba

Hey, I've gotten the "early 20th century" section to a publishable point, and the "post-Castro period" basically done (I'm gonna try to add some stuff from Sam Dolgoff's Cuban Revolution). Hopefully in the next day or two I'll get the last section ("Exile") finished up. Would you care to take a look and tell me if there's anything you think needs changing/cleaning up/expanded/whatever? Cheers! Murderbike 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, taking way longer than I thought it would (lost home internet access), I'm probably gonna publish this article tomorrow. Just a few touch ups, some images, and some sort of closing will be done tomorrow. I definitely like the way you broke up the early history section, looks way better. If you want to take another look, and see if there's anything else you think needs to be done, I'd much appreciate it! Murderbike 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call on those sections, once again! I went ahead and published the article, thanks a lot for your help! Murderbike 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it looks good, let's hope it attracts some more attention now that it's in the article namespace. Incidentally, Cast mentioned a while back an idea about assembling a group of editors to collaborate on anarchism-related articles, similar to those of Anarchism in Cuba, Template:Anarchism and Dyer Lum. Would you be interested? Skomorokh ^incite 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. There used to be a WikiProject Anarchism, but it died for some reason before I started editing here. But, I think it would be great if it got recreated, it's tough trying to round up all the @-oriented folks around here when opinions or help are needed. Was this the kind of scale you were thinking? Murderbike (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that if nobody has the time/energy for creating a whole new WikiProject, we could just create an anarchism task force at WikiProject Philosophy, much like the commies have down here. Murderbike (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Clark Gable

The article Clark Gable you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Clark Gable for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.

[edit] DYK

On 1 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rashid Nugmanov , 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.

--Carabinieri 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz

I was just looking at the changes you made to Template:Situationists, and I want to ask a question. I went looking 'cause I want to make similar changes to the Jazz article, but a template is not used there, nor is it any other kind of infobox that is accessible by simply editing the article. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to edit that box. Clearly, it has to be "located" somewhere so that it can be accessed and edited, yes? I am buggered if I can figure out how to do it... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To link to a template, you use [[Template:Templatename]], but to use a template, the code is {{Templatename}}. If you edit the lede of the Jazz article, you'll see {{jazzbox}}, so what you want is Template:jazzbox. Skomorokh ^incite 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Jeez, that was easy... Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreamtime Village

I see that you just added an image to this article. Are you associated, or have you been associated with Dreamtime Village? I spent some time there in the early '90s, in between living out west, and going to Ireland for the first time. I found the time, brief as it was, very rewarding. It is interesting how long stretches of time can pass in which nothing significant happens, and yet a week or a month spent in one particular place can be so powerful it resonates through the rest of your life. I put the article on my watch list intending to expand and improve it, but had not gotten to it yet... Eventually, right? Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am but a humble lowly wikignome, whose aim is to add an appropriate image here, a dash of clarity there. I unfortunately lack either experience or expertise in the vast majority of subjects I work on. Skomorokh ^incite 03:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, whatever you say. Farbeit for me to question your claims to humility, but I will let it pass. It amuses me, though, the number of articles we have in common, many of which have nothing else in common. But, perhaps I am easily amused. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

No problem! Brad 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Roger Ebert

The article Roger Ebert you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Roger Ebert for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.

[edit] Huma A

I think we should be careful to avoid participating in what is clearly a mean-spirited, partisan smear. The fact that the campaign exists doesn't mean we must report on it. I am embarrassed for the Wikipedia that the inclusion of the allegation is being seriously entertained. The people behind the smear campaign are the same ones who are tossing around "Lezident." Why lend them any credence or support? Omission is the high road in this case. --AStanhope (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your motives, but these sentiments are simply irrelevant in judging what goes into an encyclopedia whose mission is to inform. The allegation is not being "seriously entertained"; there is no speculation about it in the article, its existence as reported by a reliable source is merely noted. With all due respect to the high road, Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. Skomorokh ^incite 04:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

My Apologies,

I was looking and doing so many vandalisms that yours slipped my eye. Please forgive me.

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, eternal vigilance and all that. Skomorokh ^incite 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in India

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the article Anarchism in India. This article is part of broader anrchist movement. This article is nominated for deletion by user Ghanadar galpa due to malicious intent. Nomination of this article for deletion is part of the serial attacks on my articles by user Ghanadar galpa. Please be aware of user Ghanadar galpa. He had added POV texts in Human rights in India page. Custodial death is very high in India, torture in widespread in police custody. But user Ghanadar galpa tried to make it seems like that the police is innocent and the custodial deaths are exaggerated. In the Custodial death section of that article, he added texts like "The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have provided the media with new abilities hitherto denied them", which I later deleted. He is accusing me that I am not neutral. But the truth is that, it seems user Ghanadar galpa cannot tolerate any article or text which depict human rights violation in India, which depict violence against non-Indian religions in India. As I am trying to bring the truth in light, he is accusing me that I am not neutral. So understand who is not neutral. And I will like to warn you that user Ghanadar galpa can try to vandalise or disrupt the article Anarchism in India as he have in the article Human rights in India. Thanks and regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this be construed as vote-canvassing? I am compiling diffs of this otolemur guy running around wp frantically defending articles he created with malice that are being AfD'ed one-by-one (and not all by me mind you, see this and this for instance, both articles created by Mr otolemus Crassicaudatus).Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not vote-canvassing. This is to inform an editor who is interested in the subject. Good editors always give votes according to their own judgements. They are not influenced by others. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of user Ghanadar galpa

Please let me aware you of user Ghanadar galpa. User Ghanadar galpa seems to be an irrational Indophilic propagandist. See the Talk:Human rights in India. There he have falsely accused me that I have violated WP:CIVIL by boldifying words and refering him in third person in a article talk page? He had added POV texts in Human rights in India page. Custodial death is very high in India, torture in widespread in police custody. But user Ghanadar galpa tried to make it seems like that the police is innocent and the custodial deaths are exaggerated. In the Custodial death section of that article, he added texts like "The media in India enjoys a wide measure of freedom and has enormous reach and power. Technological advances witnessed during the last few decades have provided the media with new abilities hitherto denied them", which I later deleted. He is accusing me that I am not neutral. But the truth is that, it seems user Ghanadar galpa cannot tolerate any article or text which depict human rights violation in India, which depict violence against non-Indian religions in India. As I am trying to bring the truth in light, he is accusing me that I am not neutral. In India, violence against Christians by Hindu-nationalists is a issue. Conversion to Christianity or trying to convert someone to Christianity may result in death in India. His motivation is very clear. He is using wikipedia as a tool to spread a dirty Indophilic propaganda. See this[2]. He have just whitewashed the mention of anti-Indian sentiment in Sri Lanka. Why? Seems very clear. He could not tolerate the texts "The atrocities committed by the Indian Peacekeeping Force and support for LTTE in southern India".

• User Ghanadar galpa is presently busy in a dirty propaganda campaign against me and articles I have created. He is more likely to disrupt the articles and texts he claim "anti-Indian".
• He used several wikipedia policies abusively. He nominated the article Anarchism in India for speedy deletion claiming it attack page. See this[3]. Anarchism an attack page? Anarchism has nothing to do with attck. Currenty he has nominated Anarchism in India for deletion to spread anti-Anarchist propaganda.
• He also used anonymous IP address besides his username to edit wikipedia. The IP address 70.112.72.233 is used by this user for editing same texts. See this[4] and this[5]. This IP address has good contributions to the article on Bharatiya Janata Party, a political party in India known for there Hindutva ideology. See this IP address's contribution to the Hinduism in Malaysia[6] - added information on anti-Hindu incidents.
• See his edit in Deepa Mehta, a film-director faced opposition by Hindu fundamentalists. He added criticism section. His intentions are clear. He is trying to disparge subjects critical to Hindu fundamentalism.
• I have created an article Anti-Christian violence in India. I know fanatic Hindu fundamentalists will not be able to tolerate this article. User Ghanadar galpa has nominated this article for deletion.
• I have created an article Crime against foreigners in India. Do you know rape incidents on foreigners are increasing in India? Scam are prevalent in India with scam artists preying for foreign tourists? I have added all these information in that article. But some user have nominated it for deletion claiming it non-notable. Now user Ghanadar galpa is abusingly trying to distract the debate there. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime against foreigners in India and see [7] and [8]. He is now busy to distract votes from favour of articles I have created which this guy see "anti-Indian". I want to acknowledge good editors these facts. Thanks and regards.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This fellow is engaging in a smear campaign against me in multiple talk pages that tantamounts to a personal attack[9][10]. [11][12] [13][14].Should I report him? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 8 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Let's Put the Future Behind Us, 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.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)