User talk:Skomorokh/tri

[edit] Album reviews

Hi there. Regarding this change, the justification for removing the reviews is that the number of reviews should be limited to ten, per WP:ALBUM#Professional reviews. --PEJL 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. What is your rationale for choosing these particular 10 to remove? Skomorokh ^incite 15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who made the selection, User:Chinese lucky strike did that. I just restored the removal. Feel free to substitute any others that you feel may be more appropriate. Have nice day. --PEJL 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Gibsonian

Some responses on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Bell (professor)

While your comment is correct that Britain is not equivalent to the United Kingdom, what does British mean in this context except "subject of the United Kingdom." Britain is a disambiguation page, so linking to it directly isn't helpful. While the term has many definitions, one of them is correct on this page. I would maintain that it's United Kingdom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is better, I think, to stipulate the professors exact nationality/citizenship rather than to use incorrect and misleading pipes. Is English acceptable? Skomorokh ^incite 09:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I don't think the piping is misleading, though, any more than linking American to United States of America. But if you prefer English, that's fine with me. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, amicably. Skomorokh ^incite 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chiconomists

Per the TfD, it has been moved to User:Skomorokh/Template:Chiconomists so the content is not lost until a sutiable template can be made. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I have reversed my decision and restored the template at its original location. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoroughness and consideration. Skomorokh ^incite 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Voluntaryism Black anarchism Japanese Anarchist Federation Benjamin Tucker Joseph Déjacque Marginalism Gustave de Molinari Anarchism & Other Essays Criticisms of socialism Anarchist Prisoners' Legal Aid Network Well-field system Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation Matthias Claudius NEFAC Charlotte Wilson Curious George Brigade Alternative Media Project Spanish Revolution Green Anarchy

Cleanup Anti-capitalism Individualist feminism Senya Fleshin Merge Utopia (anarchist community) Love and Rage Civil libertarianism Add Sources Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism Panarchism Anarch (sovereign individual) Wikify GANDALF trial Edmund Husserl Philosophy of education Expand Anarchism and Marxism Capitalism in the twentieth century Lullabies to Paralyze

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Raygun Gothic

The merge proposal was over a month old. It was not "contentested", or even contested. You had plenty of time to make any objections. RandomCritic 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Skomorokh ^incite 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love and Rage merger?

Have you been following the Love and Rage article at all? I was just looking at it, and the article's history, and I see that this merge proposal has been in place since January, with no discussion having taken place at all. It seems to me that there is little interest in the merger. I take no position on the issue, as I feel I do not know enough about the issues involved. Something should be done, though, because the merger tags now look absurd. Clearly, the merger is not going to happen. Do you have any thoughts on the issue? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm only peripherally familiar with the subject matter—it's unclear to me whether the RABL is notable enough for its own article or not; the content of the two articles seems dissilimar enough, at any rate. I'd default to two separate articles. The RABL Afd doesn't mention merging at all. I suggest contacting User:Aefflin, who placed the merge tag, to explain their proposal on the talkpage. If Aefllin is ambivalent or non-responsive, best go ahead and remove the tags yourself if you feel strongly enough about it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and sorry I can't be of greater help. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 17:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No need for apology. Thanks for your response. Neither of these articles is on my watch list, and I only encountered this by chance, so I haven't any strong feelings on the matter one way or the other, frankly. I will, though, contact Aefflin and ask him to remove the tags. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Node Magazine

On 4 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Node Magazine, 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.

--PFHLai 11:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism; template and category

RE:Labadie Collection, just wondering about the rationale you're using to include/remove Template:Anarchism and Category:Anarchism – shouldn't both go together?

Please allow me to explain my reasoning. The Anarchism template includes a number of subsections, the most pertinent to this article being History of Anarchism, as this article describes a collection of historic anarchist texts. However, the Anarchism category is not specific to this article. More appropriate would be the History of anarchism category, a subsection of the Anarchism category. This same rational would remove Emma Goldman from the Anarchism category (she is located under the Anarchists category subsection) but keep the Anarchism template located within the article pertaining to her (she is significant to anarchist Schools of thought, Theory and practice, and History.)

I hope this explanation is sufficient.--Cast 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So, the template should go on all pages related to anarchism, whereas Category:Anarchism should be removed in favour of subcategories wherever possible? Skomorokh ^incite 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my estimation, yes. But if you have an alternative that may serve better, I'd be more than happy to hear it out and implement it.--Cast 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your help. Any idea how we can make text to wrap around both Template:Anarchism and Template:Forms of government on Anarchy page? As a side note: I have included Category:Anarchism on Template:Anarchism but now think it was a wrong move since category has many more sub-categories, and some articles where template is present may better fit into respective sub-category than just generic Category:Anarchism. Maksdo 22:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your initial question; is it that you want Template:Forms of government to automatically hide its contents like Template:Anarchism? Or rather that both templates have text that overlaps their boundaries? In either case, and with the template/category questions, User:Cast is the most knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedian; I'll direct your question to them and see if we can sort this out. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

...how to make article text to wrap around both templates (it has nothing to do with any text inside of templates). When I use IE 6.0+ there is a gap between "For other uses..." and the intro blurb. Text "Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following..." doesn't wrap around Template:Anarchism at all. Text wraps just fine in Firefox. Maksdo 03:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider myself an experienced wikipedian, but being the user who reverse engineered the Scientology template (which doesn't seem to exist any more) to create the Anarchism template, I'll accept the description on this occasion.

I have checked the Anarchy page on both FireFox and Internet Explorer, and found the problem you're referring to. After a bit of experimentation, I found that the bug takes place if two templates, any two, are included above the first subsection. Placing either Anarchism or Forms of Government in the intro alone causes no problems. Placing them both together in any order causes that gap. However, by placing one under the first subsection title, Anarchy after state collapse, fixes the bug. I've taken the initiative to do so. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix the problem completely, as it seems to be a script error I cannot correct.

As regards Template:Anarchism and Category:Anarchism, I can see where you added the category, but it doesn't seem to effect the template page -- or the template itself -- in anyway. Perhaps you haven't formatted it as you intended? That said, I don't think the template goes in the Anarchism category itself. I think, if anything, the Template should be included in an Anarchism Task Force page, which has not been created.

I've been thinking about assembling such a group, as there seems to be a fair number of wikipediens such as ourselves who are interested in maintaining Anarchist related wiki content. But then, I remember that would require organization, and we all know "organized anarchist" is a contradiction in terms, am I right or am I right?--Cast 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying; that would be order, when of course anarchy means chaos. Sign me up! Skomorokh ^incite 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messages moved from User page

Messages moved from user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job (and timing) on this post!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-anarchism

They're giving me a bunch of crap about my post as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taotroyism

Troy Vincent Lewald 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on making it through the process!!

Looks they merged your article with an existing one where it would get more attention; mine is next!

Impeccable timing by the way.

\m/ < o > \m/

Troy Vincent Lewald 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss for words…I thank you from the bottom of my good faith-filled incredulous heart. Skomorokh ^incite 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are MOST welcome and I hope you will continue your great work/ideas/philosophies without deter from others' opinions.

Feel free to lean on me for support and assistance.

Troy Vincent Lewald 18:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burroughs page

When you look at the William S. Burroughs page, does it look properly-formatted for you? 'Cause, when I look at it, I have a vast sea of white between the toc on the left, the infobox on the right, the opening paragraphs at the top, and the early life section at the bottom. Most of the screen is white. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is the case.

Also, speaking of the infobox, do you think there is too much information in it? I am speaking specifically of the "influenced by" list: Do we really need 25 entries there? Surely, this could be pared down to the 10 most important authors and artists he influenced, yes? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm viewing at a relatively high resolution with the default skin, and the only whitespace I see is the (admittedly large) usual gap between the toc and infobox; this is common to all articles with tocs adn infoboxes which are longer than the intro; it's just more pronounced here.

There probably is too much info in the infobox; firstly we could replace the full names with piped surnames, a la William Gibson. If there is still a problem, we could take the drastic step of removing all people not specifically mentioned in the text. Even more drastically, we could remove all people whose influence on/by Burroughs is not supported by a reference in the article. I'm opposed to reducing the number of entries according to importance, as in the absence of a reference, this is necessarily arbitrary and pov. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I have been told that internet exploiter exaggerates those blank spaces---I have had this problem before, and was basically told there was nothing that could be done other than switching to Firefox or similar. In this case, the white space is vast, but I guess I'll live with it.

As for the infobox, I like your suggestion about "piped surnames." Let's try that before we go to work with the pruning shears. Thanks for your response. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, and commiserations on your troglodytean software, ha. Skomorokh ^incite 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Damn, you were fast. I started to work on the influenced section right after you did the influenced by, but you beat me easily. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Firefox ;) Skomorokh ^incite 05:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book cover

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Friedrich Nietzsche Ecce Homo.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Ecce Homo 1908.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Skomorokh ^incite 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your top template at Anarchism

I have removed the template. As mentioned in my edit summary, the "citations missing" template at the top of article should be used only for articles where there are few or no citations; clearly not the case here, with more than 100 footnotes. If you find this problem with a particular section, feel free to put a template there, but keep in mind that summary style sections don't have to be cited in depth the way that regular sections are; the citations should be in the daughter article. With regard to "peacock terms", please explain, with examples, on the article talk page, so that other editors can understand and respond to your specific concerns; unfortunately, none of us are mind-readers. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention John, but the passive aggressive tone is less than necessary. The template [[Template:Unreferenced|{{Unreferenced}} is intended for articles with no sources, the template {{refimprove}} is a general template for articles which need improved references; you seemed to be confused about the role of {{citations missing}} as the template documentation does not at all support your interpretation – the template is simply for articles which are missing citations. The article does in fact have citations missing, because the daughter articles, as you put, do a less than stellar job of referencing at times (cf. for example Green anarchism, International Workingmen's Association, Anarchism in Spain).

As for peacock terms, the template links to a clear and simple to understand definition. That there are peacock terms in the article is difficult to contest - I count 17 instances of "some", 12 instances of "many" most of which are inappropriate/uncited. Articles with such a number of violations are typically tagged with one template rather than, say, 20+ inline tags as the latter approach is sometimes considered disruptive. If you still have difficulty identifying the peacock terms in the article, I will happily tag them. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to the question of peacock terms on the article talk page; thank you for posting examples. As for the citations missing template, which states This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes, I think most editors would agree that putting any standard template at the top of 99% of articles in Wikipedia would be pointless, and that if you think that this template is appropriate for Anarchism, then you must think that virtually all other articles (FAs and GAs excepting) are deficient as well.

In short, I have no problems with such a template placed at specific sections, such as the summary style sections that you mention, when citations are missing in the daughter article, but I question the value of it at the top of the article. But I'm not going to fight about it; I've made my position clear, and I'll leave it to others to decide what they think should be done. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my RFA

[edit] Anarchism in Cuba

Hey, personally, I wouldn't mind "finishing" it first, though it'll be at least a week or two, as I'm finishing up some real life shit. HOWEVER, if you really think that it's in a publishable form, I don't really care that much. I definitely think the section on this century needs to at least be tied up a bit to not seem like it's just PART of an article. Murderbike 07:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your baby, the world will not end tomorrow. Best of luck with it, Skomorokh ^incite 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd for Hutch

Hi, just wanted to say, thanks for your work on the Hutch article. It really was terrible before you came along; but now that you've put your work into it I can no longer support the AfD I initiated, so I'll withdraw it. I only wish that more people who contest AfDs would follow your lead and actually improve the articles they care about. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, what is even more rare is the integrity of withdrawing a deletion nomination; I commend your even-handedness, user. Many worthy subjects have been removed with extreme haste from the encyclopaedia merely because their articles needed cleanup and sourcing. Skomorokh ^incite 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)