User talk:Skomorokh/jedan

Your concerns with Anarchism in Ukraine[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anaximander[edit]

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)[reply]

Regards. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baudrillard Article[edit]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

clumsy phrasing[edit]

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)[reply]

Oops, sorry[edit]

Sorry I reverted your blanking part of your user talk page and labeled it vandalism. It's not really vandalism, but I suggest you check out this page. Thanks. --Chaffers ^(talk)/_{(contributions)} 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though he did remove a personal attack warning. --24.136.230.38 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

Please explain how I vandalized here. - Bagel7 21:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll assume good faith. And, yes, I agree that they embody hard rock, and if you'll look back on the edits, you will discover that I did not make that particular edit, I just did not believe they were a super group, which you justified. - Bagel7 06:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Bridge Trilogy[edit]

Im not too well versed with Idoru, but Yeah, i would be very interested in developing the Virtual Light Article- Sorry for the late reply, i was on holiday. --Dark wingstalker 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Count Ringworm's edits[edit]

I was just saying to Derwig, who reverted Count Ringworm's addition of the film stub to the Terry Gilliam article, that someone needs to explain to this fellow what a stub is. He's added that tag to a dozen article, not one of which is a stub. ---Charles 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message, and added my two cents worth. Seems like a well-intended fellow, so no need to beat up on him too much. However, reverting the errors of the well-intended is still tiring. Thanks. Cheers! ---Charles 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Hedberg editing[edit]

Quotes are not allowed on Wikipedia without encyclopedic context. The link to {{wikiquote}} is there for good reason, use it. Burntsauce 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

I didn't remove the freaking image, I kept it right there. People would have a choice if they wanted to see the nude photo. Besides, your acting immature. --Meaneager 03:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I want the image gone, but it won't happen. I'm trying to find something in between, such as giving people a choice if they want to see a nude photo. Even some of the RATM fans were shocked and disgusted. --Meaneager 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure hunt?[edit]

Am I not linking to the photographs correctly? Let me know if I could make the photographs better accessible or if I should just remove them. Thanks, -DWRZ 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, sterling effort old boy, do continue. Skomorokh 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not sure if that's sarcasm or not but, uhm... haha... -DWRZ 04:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I jest? Do you want karate? Skomorokh 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roflmao, thanks for the laugh... :D -DWRZ 04:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry[edit]

Please refrain from making assumptions about my motivations in my edits.[1] There is no good faith in any of your comments so please stop wasting time pointing out what you yourself are obviously unwilling to do. Also I'd like to add more current studies being done on Nietzsche in Germany. I would first like to let you take a look at it a small taste of the work since I am going to assume you are not a blind ideology who will have to be argued with in order to add current research to Nietzsche's article or at least research made in the last 15 years. Hopefully Nietzsche to can be held to his own standard and take some hammering. [2] author and yes that little bit at the end is Nietzsche endorsing being a pre-socrates and pre-plato philosophy sophist who believes in power, not truth (i.e. The will to power). So tell me how many admins will it take for me to add this information to the Nietzsche article since it is after all sourced-you know that Nietzsche was a sophist. Thanks again (for all the motivation). LoveMonkey 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoveMonkey research[edit]

Here let me post comment right here on your talkpage.

4.

In one of the late posthumous fragments Nietzsche says: „[T]he Greek culture of the sophists [...] belongs to the culture of Pericles’ age just as inevitably as Plato does not belong to it: its predecessors are Heraclitus, Democritus, the academic types of old philosophy [...]. [A]ll progress in epistemological and moralistic knowledge restored the Sophists... [O]ur modern way of thinking is extremely Heraclitian, Democritian and Protagorean [...] it would suffice to say that it is Protagorean because Protagoras encompasses both Heraclitus and Democritus.“ (KSA 13, 14[116]) These statements show the philosophical significance of his early aesthetic and rhetorical conception of „the force of plasticity“ as it was outlined in his treatise on history. Nietzsche conceives of the Pre-Socratics’ and Sophists’ world of thought, which were brought in connection with one another in his depiction in the „Book of Philosophers“, as congenial, and he distinguishes between their philosophy and Platonic/Socratic philosophy. He establishes a separate genealogy for Heraclitus and Protagoras and has Protagoras, as the Sophist most practised in theory and probably the one who was held in highest esteem during antiquity, represent the whole tradition. In terms of his mature philosophy, Democritus is pre-Socratic, but he lived during the era of sophistry and took an interest in ethics and theories of culture as the Sophists did. In the opposition between Pre-Socratism and Platonism which Nietzsche constructed, he reflected on his own attitude towards academic philosophy. His return to the Sophistic world view, which is determined by rhetoric, is in fact motivated by his criticism of academic philosophy. Since antiquity, rhetoric represented the antithesis of philosophy, much longer than the modern discipline of aesthetics did, which Nietzsche had opposed to traditional metaphysics in his book on tragedy. Aesthetics did not emerge as a discipline until the 18th century, and when it did, it adopted rhetorical ideas.

From the perspective of the late Nietzsche, „our modern way of thought“ becomes „Protagorean“ on the basis of the subjectivism of the „will to power.“

LoveMonkey conversation[edit]

For record (or whatever) this is not the first person to make the connect (hint, hint) but both sides can be addressed right? The old for and against? So again how many admins is it going to take? Since you quickly removed a category that can be sourced? You didn't even try and find out you assumed (in several different ways) bad faith. LoveMonkey 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I made no assumptions about your motivations. You identified your summary-free edit as minor. This was incorrect as it added content (Category:Sophists) as opposed to the mere copy-editting that the "minor" denotation implies. An editor viewing a blank summary marked minor would reasonably deduce, assuming good faith, that no new content was added. In this instance, that was clearly not the case, and therefore I labeled your edit a stealth addition.

Nonsense you referred to my addition as stealth [3].

The issue being stealth, and if you are misunderstood it is by your own words, where is it policy to label additions stealth? Please address the label stealth. LoveMonkey 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy as far as I'm aware. What I meant was that you, by your tagging your edit with a inaccurate label (can we agree it not a minor edit?), you introduced new content to the article under false pretences, a manner which I consider falls under the concept stealth. I'm not entirely beholden to the phrase, so if you find it offensive, consider it retracted. However, your edit was misleading regardless of your intentions.Skomorokh 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the reason I reverted your edit is because it is blatantly obvious that Friedrich Nietzsche, a 19th century German philosopher does not belong in the category Sophists, which is reserved for "Those ancient Greeks who called themselves, or were called by others, Sophists". If you take issue with this description, the place to discuss it is Category talk:Sophists. However, at the time of your edit, the categorisation was completely lacking merit and did in no way improve the article. It deserved to be reverted.

If the information relates to him which it does, you have no authority to decide to keep it from the article, since it can be sourced. By your definition, then he can't be a Hellenist either, remove the category please since Fredrick was most definitely not an ancient Greek. Or put back the sophist category. Your argument is invalid you can not block information about the individual if it can be sourced. LoveMonkey 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, I never assumed bad faith on your behalf, nor do I now. On the contrary, I believe your enthusiasm for the subject as expressed above indicate your good faith, and I encourage you to continue contributing to the Nietzsche article, albeit with more discretion and prior discussion unless you are certain your edits will be uncontroversial. Regards, Skomorokh 08:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One then restore the sourced category and two refrain from labeling my edits with potentially derogatory labels such as stealth, even better leave them alone that would most definitely show "good faith". LoveMonkey 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Category:Sophists: "Those ancient Greeks who called themselves, or were called by others, Sophists". Nietzsche clearly does not qualify, agreed?

Criteria for Category:Hellenists: "Classical Philologists specializing in Ancient Greek." I think on the basis of The Birth of Tragedy and his appointment at Basel, Nietzsche meets these criteria. Do you disagree? Skomorokh 18:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of the stone age[edit]

Here's just a big thanks for all the editing you do to all QOTSA related wikipedia articles. Don't know if your discussion page is for more important things, but hey. red157 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do prefer to reserve my talkpage for long, drawn-out utterly pointless misunderstandings of minute points of policy, but gracias, it always gets the heart racing to see if I beat you to wikipedia with articles thieved off RR. Who knows, Era V or the Queens could make it to GA standard one of these years, keep up the good work. Skomorokh incite 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the hope. Good call adding stuff from the Virgin Media interview as well. red157 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

You're so smart Wikidan829 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Skomorokh ^incite 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I was so busy, haven't event thanked you yet for looking through the Tool article. So I guess I'll step in line with my bouquet of flowers and leave a note of thanks =) We're almost through adding references, there are probably some missing, but at least we took care of the ones you pointed out.. Johnnyw talk 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

Yesterday, I meant to edit the RATM template to add the singles. In fact, I had brought up the edit page, and was in the middle of adding the singles when something came up and I had to quit without saving. And today, when I got to the template, you had already done it! So thanks for beating me to the punch. :) You also seem to have a pretty good music sense judging from the Queens of the Stone Age title 2 above mine. - Bagel7 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm still going to refine the template a little if it's alright with you. :) - Bagel7 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds and all that, wot wot! So far so good on the template, you have my entirely unnecessary blessing until we fall out in a bitter row over what the last letter of de la Rocha's forename is, or somesuch lethal triviality. Skomorokh ^incite 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again[edit]

You don't have to forgive me. But I am sorry if I offended you. --Meaneager 03:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter[edit]

Heya,

noticed you'd reverted the attempted addition of Dumbledore's Army to the Anarchist symbolism article. just FYI, there's a discussion going on which you may be interested in. --Black Butterfly 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]