User talk:Skomorokh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:18, 27 October 2008

William Gibson bags?

Have you seen this? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had not! I can't help but feel antipathy toward artist lifestyle brands, even in cases such as this. the skomorokh 12:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... it is certainly not as bad as some "artist lifestyle brands," as you put it, that I have seen, but, still... And the prices! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter...

Do you have e-mail available? I would like to discuss a wiki-related matter with you, but not here. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolument, Special:Emailuser/Skomorokh, though I can't promise a swift response. the skomorokh 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh... in the interim, the matter seems to have righted itself. Thanks, though. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antiheroes

I have nominated this for deletion at CFD. You are welcome to participate in the discussion there. Thank you.--CyberGhostface (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. the skomorokh 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Radcliffe et al.

This book you found is not, by chance, titled Dancin' in the Streets!: Anarchists, IWWs, Surrealists, Situationists & Provos in the 1960s, as recorded in the pages of The Rebel Worker & Heatwave is it? If so, that was an early birthday present to myself purchased yesterday. If it is not, I am definitely interested in hearing more! Thank you for the thought. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est ici: OCLC 84053793. Happy early birthday, the skomorokh 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I've not seen this one! I am very interested. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Meinong's jungle

On 17 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meinong's jungle, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand talk page and these unfortunate disruptions

Hi Skomorokh, hope all is well with you. If I could make a suggestion, it seems that a reasonable case could be made to administrators that an indefinite application of semi-protection on both the talk page and the article are now unfortunately necessary based on the history of the page. Attempts to reason with the anon IP in a fairly respectful manner have not worked out too well over the past year. Normally, I would cringe at the thought of trying to block user participation -- even anon IP participation -- in any way on Wikipedia because it usually makes matters worse, but I don't see what other avenue is left available at this point. Clearly, the disruption needs to stop. The user is now resorting to multiple IP addresses to make a WP:POINT. If you disagree or if you have any other thoughts, I'm open to suggestions before approaching the administrators. J Readings (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, J. I am loath to semi the talkpage, as anons who can't edit the article have nowhere to raise the alarm, if for example there is something seriously wrong with the article. I'm tempted to say the disruption is worth the price of keeping the talkpage open, especially if we could get admins to watch the page and block the IP as soon as he shows up. The most important thing is to not to engage him; exchanging taunts, using nicknames etc. only exacerbates the situation. A period of having every single edit reverted without discussion could starve him of the attention and frustrate sufficiently to make continuing a waste of his time. Perhaps optimistic, but I personally would not be inclined to use the nuclear option at this point. Regards, the skomorokh 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just thought that since voting seems the bottom-line here, promoting interest in the subject might be logical. Forgive me, I had this whole "democracy" pressumption thing going on! Carry on! Lkeryl (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Anarchism in Russia

On 22 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anarchism in Russia, 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.

thx Victuallers (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chernoe Znamia, but who's counting! Mahalo, the skomorokh 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rand/Greenspan

I've started a section on the talk page discussing the addition of extra info on Greenspan. Let's leave it up until we come to a consensus since its always easier to cut information than to add it. Idag (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, that is a wise course of action. Regards, the skomorokh 20:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous movement

He suggested that you go make minor edits to every article to which he was the sole contributor, presumably to prevent me from deleting them as G5s. There's no need to game the system that way, though - if you're prepared to vouch for the content of any/all of his pages, I'll cheerfully leave them undeleted. I'm concerned primarily because he has a history of falsifying sources, but as long as somebody in goodstanding assures me that all's well with them, I won't delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the libertarian-related articles he has created have been roughly accurate OR, usually with one decent source tacked on to avoid regular CSD, and a twist of COATRACK. So, eminently save-able; I give for example this article, which was badly-needed. I hadn't come across any falsified sources, can you give examples? Perhaps a Jean Latore-like user subpage would be useful; Marc Montoni and Rejection Hotline. Another way of doing things would be to delete then userfy them to me, and I could have a look at the sources and see if the articles are worth reintroducing to the mainspace.

If I recall/guess correctly this individual was indef blocked for incivility (in defending quasi-notable "seduction" articles against feminist/deletionist editors) and then socking under the Aldrich Hanssen (talk · contribs) account, and seems undeterred by anti-sockpuppet measures. Although I know the dangers of moral hazard, I wonder if having him on the run instead of out in the open is really in the encyclopaedias best interest. the skomorokh 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the scoop I left on Sarcasdic Idealists page, minus a few points which I will add. The perp has confessed via email to me - since we are on the same outside email list - that he would get a new IP and start NEW sockpuppets - he thinks being an anarchist gives him that right! I edit a lot of the same articles so his appearance and his sockpuppets were very obvious - and annoying - to me. The most obvious New users, besides User:Simultaneous movement are User:ProductionsGuy and User:PublicSquare. These New users are suspicious because same pattern of editing, to many of same articles, but I could be wrong. Awesomeeconomist, Dropperada, OpenFuture, RothbardSpooner. I've reported them to admin who banned S.M.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has one straight sockpuppet he's had for a long time that backs up his many edits.

I have a problem with him creating 2 fringe POV templates - Template:Right-libertarianism_sidebar and Template:Agorism_sidebar and lumping articles that don't belong under them, under them. I'll be asking those to be deleted, for fringiness and because created by a banned user.

I also have a problem with him trying to insert questionably sourced pro-violence material in various libertarians articles, to support his Tim McVeigh fandom. (Which he refers to frequently, perhaps to intimidate others who live in his neighborhood and edit wikipedia and notice his sock puppets.)

I don't understand the reference to Montoni and Hotline, but one of the sockpuppets did put up an article about his real self which he has continued to edit, as have a few other people. (Unless only his sockpuppets edited it.) But for obvious reasons I won't name who he is.

As I told him, if he'd take his medicine and stay away for a while, promise he'd reformed, and then not make POV pushing questionable edits and edit cooperatively, I'd cut him some slack. But he's pretty much flipped the bird on that. Carol Moore 13:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Yo Carol, thanks for the insight. I think I know the identity of the real-life individual, having noticed the socks adding suspiciously detailed information to the article. I share your discomfort with {{Right-libertarianism sidebar}},a and will be supporting its deletion, but although as you say the {{Agorism sidebar}} was created with a lot of irrelevant articles, I think it is salvagable and have done some work on cutting it down. I can't comment on the violence issue, as I am not familiar with the consensus attitude of libertarians towards violence. Montoni looks like a real-life associate, as our sock is obviously a sympathiser and probably member of the radical/anarchist/Rothbardian segment of the LP. Giving this individuals tenacity, unless technical IP blocking gets better we are probably going to have to adapt to having to monitor his edits whenever a new sock shows up. Keep me informed if you notice anything else of interest about the case. Regards, the skomorokh 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: agorism sidebar, I think the Agorism article itself has to prove the philosophy is sufficiently noteable to have a sidebar that will claim various articles belong under it. (Though I assume more than one template can claim various articles.)
Re: keeping you informed, are you an administrator who can block sock puppets? Carol Moore 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Now deleted articles created by recent Sarsaparilla socks

Note that some of these are re-creations of previously deleted articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias; the only topics there which I might be interested in rescuing have legitimately been deleted recently. the skomorokh 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've also held off on deleting any of the not-yet-deleted stuff specifically to give editors in good standing, including you, a chance to have a look at them. If you're interested, do you want to go through whichever of the non-deleted ones you want and let me know which you think should be kept and which I should go ahead and nuke? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would be happy to trawl through the pages, but I am unsure which ones are under nuclear threat after Nishkids last comment ruling out some of the socks. Are we talking about Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla or Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla or some other grouping? Thanks, the skomorokh 13:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn yourself

By undoing my contributions, you are defending Rand cultists and racists who (again) think it is cute to transform a contributor's name from Nilges to Niggles.

Your yawn is familiar. It is the yawn of the computer tender and convenience store clerk.

The post you removed contained yet another good faith offer (to racists and convenience store clerks) to discuss the bias in the Rand article, offers the terms of which I have conformed before, only to repeatedly discover that being forthright and knowing how to write offends the sensibilities of people who are trying, desparately, to curry favor from Jimmy Wales, by making the Rand site a place in which people are destroyed.

This issue is not going away. It's going to YouTube and the Huffington Post, and from there it shall be general knowledge that wikipedians are racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.111.189 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nilges, I should not have to tell you that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and that your editing privileges have been revoked. This occurred, I surmise, long before your interactions with the current set of editors on Rand-related pages, for your disruption of the project. You complain that your treatment here has hurt your feelings, and that may very well be the case, but the Wikipedian editing community does not negotiate with, mollify or sympathise with those who continue to abuse it. You have my welcome until further notice to post brief comments here on my talkpage, but not to use the articles and article talkpages to pursue your personal vendettas, however justified. If you genuinely intend to be a productive editor here, the path to do so is to log in at spinoza1111 (talk · contribs), make your case with an unblock request, and accept the consequences in a mature manner. Sincerely, the skomorokh 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right-Libertarian template (almost) deleted

See this llink. Misread and thought conclusion was to delete, though that is where it is headed. Anyway, many of the same arguments reply to the Agorism template, which is filled with WP:OR - or things only referenced in the writings of one not very notable individual. Carol Moore 18:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carol, I've already commented in the discussion. The difference between "right libertarianism" and agorism is that the latter is a discrete movement and the former is a forked classification. Agorism is a unique combination of normally disparate concepts - class theory with market economics, revolutionary politics with consumerism etc. It would be useful to have the template on the few agorism pages we have - Agorism, SEK3, New Libertarian Manifesto - but not on the concept articles (as agorism is very minor). There is less of a risk with original research because there is a clear canon of agorist writings which can be referenced. the skomorokh 19:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knabb

Jesus, (wo)man [sic]! I came over here to ask you a question about my SI legacy subpage, and then I see that you already made all the fixes to the Ken Knabb page that I was going to get to in the next 10 minutes or so... Leave some for the rest of us, you're making me feel like an underachiever. Of course, I could always choose not to spend time doing things like this, and that might make a difference. Alas... But, not for nothing, the stacks of books on my desk are getting higher, and that is a good sign. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah - sitting around, terminally bored, hitting F5 on the watchlist will do that to you. I'm waiting for my laziness to subside and actually tackle some SI content, but I expect to be waiting awhile...although I don't think I'll emulate your shameless myspacing in the meantime (Time Bandits, really?)! the skomorokh 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspacing?!?! That might call for pistols-at-dawn! And, besides, what is wrong with Time Bandits? As far as the SI is concerned, I am considering writing a paragraph or two (basically a sub-sub-section) on the SI's legacy in radical publishing: Semiotext(e), Crimethinc, Bureau of Public Secrets, BM Elephant, Black & Red, et al. are all closely associated with/influenced by the SI's ideas and/or have published their works. This is worth mentioning. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Masse

Actually, closers are supposed to evaluate the strength of argument rather than strength of numbers. In terms of that, it seemed that those on the "delete" side had the arguments supported by fact—the substantive sourcing necessary to support an article is not available. (This is aside the fact that, in terms of strength of numbers, several "keeps" were either canvassed or an SPA.) If you can show me that I'm incorrect in that assessment, I'll be happy to revisit my decision. Could you please point me to substantive, reliable sourcing that could be used to support the article if it were restored? I've no interest in keeping a viable article deleted, but the "sources" thus far did not provide for viability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 :Hah - sitting around, terminally bored, hitting F5 on the watchlist will do that to you. I'm waiting for my laziness to subside and actually tackle some SI content, but I expect to be waiting awhile...although I don't think I'll emulate your shameless [[WP:MYSPACE|myspacing]] in the meantime (''Time Bandits'', really?)! <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 ::''Myspacing''?!?!  That might call for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Duello#Irish_Code_Duello pistols-at-dawn]!  And, besides, what is wrong with ''[[Time Bandits]]''?  As far as the SI is concerned, I am considering writing a paragraph or two (basically a sub-sub-section) on the SI's legacy in radical publishing: Semiotext(e), Crimethinc, Bureau of Public Secrets, BM Elephant, Black & Red, et al. are all closely associated with/influenced by the SI's ideas and/or have published their works.  This is worth mentioning. ---<font face="Celtic">[[User:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">RepublicanJacobite</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:RepublicanJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The'FortyFive'</span>]]''</sub></font> 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
+==Bruno Masse==
+Actually, closers are supposed to evaluate the strength of argument rather than strength of numbers. In terms of that, it seemed that those on the "delete" side had the arguments supported by fact&mdash;the substantive sourcing necessary to support an article is not available. (This is aside the fact that, in terms of strength of numbers, several "keeps" were either canvassed or an SPA.) If you can show me that I'm incorrect in that assessment, I'll be happy to revisit my decision. Could you please point me to substantive, reliable sourcing that could be used to support the article if it were restored? I've no interest in keeping a viable article deleted, but the "sources" thus far did not provide for viability. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)