User talk:Skomorokh/osam

Second Situationist International

I do not know if this article is on your (incredibly long) watchlist or not, but I proposed a merger at the end of January for two related articles which are little more than stubs. How much time should I realistically give for discussion before I go ahead with the merger? At this point, I have received no responses. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With empty talkpages and ultra-stub articles I probably would not have even proposed a merger, just boldly gone ahead, which according to WP:MERGE is fine and dandy as long as it's in good faith. But since you did put the notices up, I'd say give it a week from when you reqested comment, so as to avoid the impression of false consensus. скоморохъ 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I considered doing that, honestly. But, after the response when I put Second Lettrist International up for AfD, I fully expected Wikipedia's hidden situlogists to jump out of the woodwork. Instead, nothing. Meh. I should have just merged them in the first place. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Any time. On the underhanded side of things, only the most assiduous watchlisters will be motivated to revert a bold stub merge; with AfD, every idiot with an axe to grind will come flocking. Not that I recommend using underhanded tactics to systematically undermine Wikipedia's god-given consensus culture of course...ahem. скоморохъ 19:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for performing this merger! This was something I intended to get to this afternoon, but had not gotten around to yet. I have been busy with User:RepublicanJacobite/Doctors, Professors, Kings & Queens, which has turned into a much bigger project than I had originally imagined. But, I want it done right, so I continue plugging away at it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Workers of the World

I just made some big changes to the page layout on this article. Unfortunately, the only way I could get said changes to work was by removing {{labor}}, which insists on floating out into the middle of the page. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the problem is. It needs to be put back in the article, but I am not going to do so until I know that it will behave and stay where I put it. Have you any ideas? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the labor box was behaving itself perfectly for me in all the revisions until this one. Usually displacement only arises when there is overlap with another template/image/box which pushes the labor box into the centre. You could try sticking it into the post-WWII section (you'd have to switch Image:18 Mar 2007 Seattle Demo IWW 07A.jpg to the left). I'm not sure how much help I can be unless you take a screenshot of the problem. The template is well-maintained, though, so you could try asking at template talk:labor. Regards, скоморохъ 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, and done. Thanks, as always, for your advice. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Anarchist-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is recommended" indeed. It's not necessary to pass through your pet pseudo-authoritative court to figure out whether a new stub type would benefit the encyclopedia. {{Anarchist-stub}} clearly meets the naming guidelines, is correctly formatted to the extent that {{Politician-stub}} is, and cannot cross existing hierarchies as it is a sub-stub of {{Anarchism-stub}}. Whether it meets the kangaroo court's arbitrary "standard threshold" is irrelevant, as it refines an existing category in a valuable sense - check Category:Anarchism stubs and you will find that individual anarchists form a non-trivial subset, thus making the new category a useful navigational and article-improvement aid to the Anarchism task force. Thank you for your diligence, ????????? 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is recommended" indeed. Indeed it is. Recommendations and guidelines are usually put in place for extremely good reasons. In this case, largely because people see the heading Be bold and do not realise that it primarily applies to articles, and specifically mentions templates and categories as areas which can cause repercussions further down the track.

It's not necessary to pass through your pet pseudo-authoritative court to figure out whether a new stub type would benefit the encyclopedia. True, but it is worth passing through these standard procedures to check that you haven't made some form of mistake in your unilateral decision to create a stub type. Over 90% of stub types that are created without such procedures later need considerably more work on the part of the creators of them, stub sorters, and editors in general. Also, you';re only grasping one half of the reason for the proposal process. Who needs to use sttub types the most? Stub sorters. So Don't you think it would have made sense for stub sorters to know that there was likely to be a new stub type, so that they could alter their lists of stub types and know that they could use this? By keeping WP:WSS out of the loop, you made it impossible for this stub type to be effective or even widely used in the process of sorting new stubs. We'd have simply gone on using {{anarchism-stub}}, and any further sorting would have had to have been done byyour WikiProject, thereby using its time and resources - which would surely be far better spent actually expanding the articles. By creating this stub type without notifying WP:WSS, all you've done is add an extra task to your WikiProject, thereby diminishing the chances that it could do as much work on the articles themselves.

{{Anarchist-stub}} clearly meets the naming guidelines, is correctly formatted to the extent that {{Politician-stub}} is...' The coding on the template itself was incorrect, and would have stayed so if I hadn't fixed it. It would have been right from the start if this had gone through the standard proposal and creation process.

..and cannot cross existing hierarchies as it is a sub-stub of {{Anarchism-stub}}. Whether it meets the kangaroo court's arbitrary "standard threshold" is irrelevant. The "arbitrary standard threshold" is one which has been arrived at aftyer several years of work sorting and siftinf stubs, and is one which is used for very good reasons. It's true that Wikipedia is not paper, and as such, it's perfectly acceptable for categories for use by readers to be of any size. however, stub categories are not for use by readers, they are for use by editors, who have different requirements. One of those requirements is that they can browse categories of a size that is neither too big to easily hunt down articles nor so small as to necessitate looking through dozens of categories. Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size for this. Anything bigger, and the task becomes too daunting. Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject, and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are created. In this case, all you've done is go from needing to look in one small stub category for articles to expand to looking through two small stub categories for articles to expand. It'll simply take longer for you to search for articles. You've also increased the number of templates and categories that stub-sorters have to patrol, increasing our workload.

as it refines an existing category in a valuable sense - check Category:Anarchism stubs and you will find that individual anarchists form a non-trivial subset, thus making the new category a useful navigational and article-improvement aid to the Anarchism task force. A non-trivial subset, yes, but of a stub type which was not in need of splitting. See above. Editors dealing with articles on anarchism now have twice as many stub categories that they have to check to find articles, whereas before they could qwuite easily scan just one reasonably sized category. In other words, you've increased their workload, as well as increasing the workload on stub sorters. As such, it's questionable as to whether you've helped or hindered Wikipedia.

Thank you for your diligence,. Don't mention it - though I cannot say the same for you. if you had been diligent, you would have followed these standard procedures, and would also have read what I wrote in my initial notification for you. Why on earth did you automatically assume this was a deletion candidate? I made it clear that it was not currently up for deletion, but was merely something which had been discovered and now needed to be assessed. Furthermore, if you read my comments properly at WP:WSS/D, you would see that I actually supported the existence of this stub type, if it could be guaranteed to be as useful as it seemed. You attitude, iof anything, is only likely to make me reassess those feelings and withdraw any support I gave this template, I would advise you NOT to bite an editor who is attempting to help your stub type survive. Grutness...wha? 21:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The main error underlining much of your comment is that by creating a new category/template, I have increased the complexity and workload on interested editors and have thus made it less likely that these editors contribute to the productive extent as before. This is simply wrong, as you will see if you take a look at the activity on anarchism-related articles before and after the creation of the task force - the task force introduced more complexity and work - talkpage tags, templates, category refinements etc. - and the editors responded not only by meeting these new demands, but also radically improving articles and introducing a score of new articles. In other words, the added structural complexity enabled editors to voluntarily increase their workload. As I'm sure you're aware, a well-executed stub-sorting can galvanise those editors primarily interested in the topic of the new sub-stub. I wouldn't have created the template/category if I didn't think the task force could maintain them. So the notion that editorial contributions are a zero-sum game is plainly false.

On the issue of notifying the stub-sorting brigade; I have created footerboxes, sidebars, new categories, merged, split and stubbed many articles without any previous knowledge and have not encountered anything but periodic support from the relevant gnome-faction. In this particular case, it might have been wiser of me to consult you chaps, but I prefer to learn by jumping in at the deep-end, and I have found asking for aid from related WikiProjects a slow and mostly fruitless process. But I chose not to look you all up and assess your diligence, so for that I apologize.

RE: Category size; for reasons I stated on the discussion page, the class of anarchists is a peculiar case which does not fit your profile above stated, and thus does not incur the risks and workload increase on WP:SS that might be an issue elsewhere. As regards doubling the size of anarchism stub categories and thereby confusing stub-sorters, I find it hard to believe a stub-sorter looking for a biographical anarchist would be so incredibly stupid as to skip over the "Anarchist subs" subcategory and uselessly skim Anarchism stubs.

Since you seem to think the template/category is a marginal improvement, it's strange that you criticize my lack of diligence in checking the standard procedures. It's also mystifying that you assume I assume it's a deletion candidate, given that I never mentioned deletion here or at the discussion page save for a cursory classification of the internal task force notification. We are not particularly bureaucratically fastidious - listing "pages for deletion, discussion, possible upmerging, renaming, splitting or recategorization" would be a little cumbersome. And while you're more than welcome to join the task force, it might be a smart idea to avoid screwing up the internal classification systems of taskforce project pages with which you are unfamiliar.

The veiled threat that you will re-evaluate the worthiness of a Wikipedia template or category based purely on the "attitude" of an editor is a remarkably childish one. Whatever your issues with my attitude are, I would hope you would attempt to reprimand me rather than attacking the template/category to make your point. And I would expect that someone of your experience, an administrator of the encyclopedia no less, would have a little thicker skin than to have their feelings bruised by the questioning of their pet project. I'd recommend some tea, chill out time and perhaps lower your expectations of every editor automatically genuflecting before the authority of what you and your colleagues have decided on. Best of luck with the worthy stub-sorting, and thanks again for taking such an interest, your passion is a virtue. Regards, скоморохъ 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's take your points one at a time.

The main error underlining much of your comment is that by creating a new category/template, I have increased the complexity and workload on interested editors and have thus made it less likely that these editors contribute to the productive extent as before. Yes, this is exactly what creating additional stuib templates and categories usually does. If your anarchism task force enjoys the extra sifting of articles, that's fine with me, but I would have thought you'd have been far more interested in expanding the articles that stub-sorting. Unfortunately if WP:WSS doesn't know of the split, that's what you destined yourselves to do if you wished this stub type to be filled. How could WP:WSS have got involved in that task if they weren't notified that a new stub type was going to be created? They couldn't. It would have been up to your task force to do that extra work.

On the issue of notifying the stub-sorting brigade; I have created footerboxes, sidebars, new categories, merged, split and stubbed many articles without any previous knowledge and have not encountered anything but periodic support from the relevant gnome-faction. Well, perhaps that's because there are no WikiProject: Wikipedia Footer boxes, WikiProject: Wikipedia Sidebars, WikiProject: Wikipedia Categories, WikiProject: Wikipedia Merging articles, WikiProject: Wikipedia Splitting articles, and WikiProject: Wikipedia Stubs. None of these exist, so there are no processes in place for doing any of that work. There are, of course, WP:TFD and WP:CFD, which are frequently called upon when people create categories or templates which don't follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

RE: Category size; for reasons I stated on the discussion page, the class of anarchists is a peculiar case which does not fit your profile above stated, and thus does not incur the risks and workload increase on WP:SS that might be an issue elsewhere. This is a valid point, if it can be shown that both stub categories would be of a viablee size. The counter argument is also valid, though - at only 230 stubs, there was no need to split anarchists out as a separate subtype. And the addition of every new stub type increases WP:WSS's workload, since it means theree is one more category and template to patrol regularly. There are already nearly 4000 of these, so every new one adds to an already overburdened job.

Since you seem to think the template/category is a marginal improvement, it's strange that you criticize my lack of diligence in checking the standard procedures. Just because I think it is a marginal improvement doesn't mean that all stub sorters will do likewise. Neither does it mean that it is the optimum possible split, or a necessary split. In terms of what could be a marginal improvement in terms of stub types, we could create ten times as many stub types as currently exist. But whether it is worth the extra work involved in patrolling extra categories is querstionable, to say the least. For that reason, styub types aren't split when they seem to be merely a marginal improvemeent - they are usually only split when there is a significant improvement.

It's also mystifying that you assume I assume it's a deletion candidate, given that I never mentioned deletion here or at the discussion page save for a cursory classification of the internal task force notification. We are not particularly bureaucratically fastidious - listing "pages for deletion, discussion, possible upmerging, renaming, splitting or recategorization" would be a little cumbersome. And while you're more than welcome to join the task force, it might be a smart idea to avoid screwing up the internal classification systems of taskforce project pages with which you are unfamiliar. Point taken as far as my editing a page in your project, though it was listed by you as a deletion candidate, which was incorrect and leading to misunderstanding by others. Given that you listed it as a deletion candidate, it was only natural for others to think that it had been listed for deletion, which it never was. Others naturally assumed it was up for deletion and jumped on the bandwagon !voting "keep", which is entirely out of place for the discussion page on which the stub type was listed. The reason they did that is no doubt that your listing the stub type as a deletion candidate made them think it was a deletion candidate. I never mentioned deletion until it became clear that all of these latecomers to the discussion believed deletion was likely. Oh, and the idea that an anarchism project would be particularly bureaucratic sounds like a contradiction in terms :)

The veiled threat that you will re-evaluate the worthiness of a Wikipedia template or category based purely on the "attitude" of an editor is a remarkably childish one. Whatever your issues with my attitude are, I would hope you would attempt to reprimand me rather than attacking the template/category to make your point. Point taken, and I apologise for that comment.

And I would expect that someone of your experience, an administrator of the encyclopedia no less, would have a little thicker skin than to have their feelings bruised by the questioning of their pet project. Again, I apologise. It is just rare for someone to have gone as far over the top with their comments as you did with yours. Most people realise that the guidelines are there for very good reasons, and that if a stub type that has been created out of process is listed for discussion, the best thing to do is to argue the virtues of their creation on the discussion page without attacking the project on their user talk page - especially when the person listing it is largely supportive of the template created.

Best of luck with the worthy stub-sorting, and thanks again for taking such an interest, your passion is a virtue. And the best of luck with your project too. As another editor once said to me, editors getting passionate enough about the project to verbally come to blows can only be a good thing for the project - it shows just how committed we are to it. Peace, Grutness...wha? 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

John Dagleish

Ok delete it because he's only been in 1 tv series so yes i was stupid for creating it wasn't I. Sorry

Hamilton365 (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust not 'short and sweet'

Regarding this [1] and your injunction that 'dabs should be short and sweet,' yes, I agree with the latter in principle, and initially tried to adhere to it in this edit, but found that, in this particular instance, the result was potentially deeply misleading, especially to minors/the uninitiated, vis-a-vis socialism and World history. Please consider.

Ok, there's no problem with changing the description, but it should not be longer than one clause. The nuances of the topic should be outlined in the article on the topic, not on a navigational aide. If it's difficult to avoid misleading readers, the description should simply be broadened. Regards, скоморохъ 12:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kristen Bell

Sorry, but I didn't know you couldn't use fair use pictures in the infobox. Could we still use it somewhere on the page? It would look good. There's no need to reply on my talkpage, if you agree, just insert it somewhere, if not, then just leave it. Thanks ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review?

Have you ever requested, or been involved in a request for, a deletion review? If so, do you have any advice? I am preparing to make a request for deletion review for the Dieselpunk article (deleted yesterday as "recreation of deleted material"), and, as I have never been involved in one before, I want to make sure I dot all my "i"s and cross all my "t"s. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uuuhhh... never mind. Had I looked, I would have seen that Ottens, the most recent creator of said article, has already requested said review. I will just jump in and offer my opinion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never taken an article to deletion review. where I have disagreed with a deletion I simply recreated the article with ironclad references. I haven't gone to deletion review because that is reserved for questioning the closing admin's assessment of the AfD - "[deletion review] should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Looking at the AfD of Dieselpunk, I think the closing admins made the procedurally correct decision. Doesn't mean there isn't a worthy article to be written on the topic though. I suppose the key point here is to what extent the new version of the article is simply recreation of previous content - you could make the case that it's sufficiently different to count as a distinct article. скоморохъ 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that is what Ottens is arguing; if he is right you have a strong case imho. скоморохъ 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article that Ottens wrote was considerable different than what was previously AfD'd (twice). Unfortunately, it looks as if recreation is not an option, regardless, because the cached version is one of the old ones, which was junk. At any rate, I am hoping that Ottens will be successful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations on your recent WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in participating the the selection of lists of the day and a list of the month for March or nominating lists for April.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool News

Maynard James Keenan has been nominated for GA and is currently on hold. It should be listed within the next couple of days. It has also been listed for peer review, and is planned for an FA nomination after a couple of reviews are completed. All help once the drive for FA begins is certainly appreciated!

In the meantime:

The current WikiProject Tool Collaboration of the Month is Lateralus Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Thanks to everyone for all your hard work. The project is off to a great start! Lara❤Love 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Literary punk genres

If you care to, please join the conversation about a possible page move. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A worthy question, I've weighed in put it looks tricky. скоморохъ 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks from Lenin1870to1924

thank you for further standardizing of "Three songs about Lenin" article Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you need any help with anything else. скоморохъ 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dieselpunk and notability

Yes, I just noticed that it had been recreated and posted for AfD. Saving it from deletion and improving it is a priority of mine as well. I am currently looking into sources, but have not found anything terribly helpful yet. Have you checked the ISFDB? It just popped into my head that something of note might be listed there. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No luck. The best resource seems to be...surprise surprise...Ottens.co.uk. The article a definite delete unless something substantial can be found, alas. скоморохъ 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I just came over here to show you this (http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/) and I see that you've found it already. Meh. Well, he does not seem to be using, or attempting to use, Wikipedia to advertise his webpage---assuming this is not merely a coincidence. My searching has so far revealed little. Have you looked at any of the information he has listed at AfD? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup the AfD sources are quite interesting, but no good for notability. I don't believe for a minute Ottens is being self-promotional; its simply a poor indicator of notability when the best resource on the topic is by the main contributor to the article. скоморохъ 23:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope to find something today at the library, but I am not sanguine as to our chances here. My suggestion, though, as far as a redirect, assuming it gets deleted, is that it redirect to our "fictional punk genres" article---assuming we can ever agree upon a name for that. I am going to do some research on that question as well. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Snezana

I have removed your deletion message from the article. There are already dozens of articles about individual names on Wikipedia, all in the same format I have used. Snezana is in the top 10 list of one of the former Yugoslav republics and I linked the article back to a list of Most popular names. It is appropriate content. Please leave it alone. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a redlink. If I proposed it for deletion, it was probably because it failed to assert the notability of the topic; editors cannot be expected to mind-read the popularity of the name. Similarity to existing articles does not change this; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to be taken seriously. Regards, скоморохъ 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually Snezana. Articles about individual names are not worthy of deletion. As I said, there are dozens -- quite possibly hundreds of them -- already on Wikipedia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, the existence of other articles is irrelevant to the notability of a particular article. Regards, скоморохъ 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. You called into question the category itself. If there are hundreds of articles already in that category, it is relevant. The content is appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Social insertion

Wow! How did you notice that I nominated the social insertion article for deletion so quickly? You listed it at WP:ATF just three minutes later!--Carabinieri (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My name is Skomorokh and I have a problem. скоморохъ 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I used to have that problem too (though it wasn't that bad) until I realized I didn't really care about many of the articles on my wathlist. Now my watchlist is down to something around 600 pages.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote the forked tongue of Hillary Clinton, my greatest weakness is that I…*sob*… care too much. скоморохъ 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)