User talk:Skomorokh/sedam

Spiritualism (philosophical)

Hi.

can you point me in the right direction for the topic on Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism. Note I changed the title.

Really, all I want is a definition to qualify the philosophical use of the word spiritualism, NOT the religious use as per Modern Spiritualism.

I know I am right in saying it has been used as such, it would be ridiculous to claim not. Currently there are no clear topics on the matter which means if some kid comes on having been told "Leibniz is the father of modern spiritualism" that means they are going to leave thinking he dabbled in ouiji boards and seances.

The article got tagged as I first posted which was ridiculous, even though I told the editor I was present and developing it. Then it got tagged by some under-16 year old youngster, ditto above. It was not the best of environments to find one's self working in.

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate the article was nominated for deletion so soon after you created it; you might want to use {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} next time you are developing an article, as that generally tends to ward off antagonists for a few days. You could also have posted a notice at Requested articles or talked to the editors at the Philosophy WikiProject; that said, I admire your boldness.

Secondly, comparison articles are generally reserved for forks of established articles; consider anarchism and nationalism, Relationship between religion and science and so on. Given that there was no existing Spiritualism (philosophy) article, this might have suggested to editors that you had a point to prove. The irregular formatting of the page title might not have helped here either.

I take your point on Leibniz, but it's the way you went about researching that landed the article in trouble - the term "spiritualism" has, as you've shown, been around for a long time and has been used in many different contexts. It's not evident from the references you provided that the "spiritualism" they were mentioning referred to the same topic. It seems highly doubtful that there a coherent, notable position of Spiritualism in philosophy given that despite its supposed long history, neither the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor the extensive Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy have an entry for it. Hope this helps, Skomorokh ^confer 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an Atlantic divide thing? I mean, over this side we have every one from Engels to G.K. Chesterton weighing in on the debate, over there the term seems solely reserved for the religious movement that was so strong. Back over here the terms spiritualism has a much broader definition regarding psychicism as a whole.

I would accept and agree it is archaic. I am also trying to find good definitions of the word's use in religion, ethics and metaphysics as well. I have no great theory to provide, my interest actually lies on the occultic side. I just wanted to try and do a little more than an "(other uses)" dictionary-type page and lucked on on an overzealous new page patroller who, by his time zone, must have been up all night. I do have one sound theory and that is 'Caffeine + Wikipedia/over-tiredness = psychotic issues'! --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good news is that the Phil. Encs. DO use the term "spiritualist" approach with regards to philosophy. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I say Nay.

You have tagged B-Sides and Rarities (Queens of the Stone Age album) for speedy deletion. This album is sanctioned by Interscope Records/Rekords Rekords. Please reconsider, As your reasoning is (1) not confirmed and (2) not a reason for speedy deletion.

Thanks for your effort, however this is not the droid you're looking for.

RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb15px} 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. I did not tag the article for speedy deletion; please review the history. If you need an indication that this is not a notable release, check the google results: [1]; there's a reason it's all torrent pages and no reliable sources. Don't you find it the least bit curious that Amazon.com don't carry it, despite Qotsa being a top-tier band? скоморохъ ^confer 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cor Blimey. I did not know that. I guess I'm fantastically Illegal, I got this on an actual CD. However, is it really criteria for deletion? It's filled with music, music that Queens of the Stone Age wrote, It sounds like Queens of the Stone Age, so it must be Queens of the Stone Age. Am I right or am I right?

I'll figure it out...

RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Qotsa, but it's just cobbled together from their other albums and live bootlegs and sold as the real deal by unscrupulous fraudsters. If I'm right, you're a poster at the RekordsRekords forums; login and search for the title of the album, there are a few threads that tell you. Sorry you forked out cash for it dude. скоморохъ ^confer 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Painful. I Checked RekRek, it's the truth. I guess it's that time.  :: RatedR ^{Leg of Lamb} 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of 156 Arch. 4/2007 - 1/2008

I'm not sure why you left me that note. User:Candy156sweet created it by mistake when trying to archive their talk page. I moved it over to a proper archive for her and before I had time to delete the redirect Pegasus had got it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle fingered you as the culprit, and far be it from me to question our omniscient robot overlords. скоморохъ ^ѧ 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		To Skomorokh for watching over more than 5,000 articles on a Wikipedia watchlist or so I read somewhere. Congratulations on William Gibson becoming a featured article. Susanlesch (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why thank you kindly, Susan. I think you deserve more than a point or two of this star for all the support you gave to the article. And I promise to seek help about watching all those articles...they're just too...damn...compelling... скоморохъ ^ѧ 06:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Port of Tubarão

Before I could respond to your notice, User:Pegasus deleted my stub article, Port of Tubarão, which was awaiting the completion of a translation request. Please see User talk:Pegasus#Speedy deletion of Port of Tubarão for my response. Wdfarmer (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks. I've placed an {{underconstruction}} tag as you suggested, added text to the talk page, and added the translation notice to the article page, all as advisories. Wdfarmer (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of surrealist films

Ok, I will take a look. I will probably have a go at it later today. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me with my article on the Philadelphia Greek Mob by putting citations. I forgot to do that.

No problem, best of luck with developing the article. скоморохъ ^ѧ 13:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Shah Sultan Balkhi Mahisawar

You have deleted the article on the above mentioned saint, without knowing him and his contribution. I just started and tried to complete the full article. None can complete an article within a short time, wiki is for knowledge sharing. Without knowing him you deleted that article. Your activity hurt me.--Librarianpmolib (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete anything; when I encountered the article it just stated his name and that he preached Islam in Bogra District or Pundravardhana. According to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, articles on people that don't explain why they are notable should be speedily deleted. If you want to work on an article before other editors judge it, might I suggest that you create a sandbox on your page, i.e. User:Librarianpmolib/Sandbox, where you can take as long as you like. Altertatively, you could use these templates: {{under construction}} and {{in use}} if you are in the middle of developing an article. Sorry if you were hurt and I hope you understand the way Wikipedia works a little better now. Thanks for helping to create new articles and feel free to ask me anything you're curious about or need help with. скоморохъ ^ѧ 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on RFPP

I laughed when I saw your reasoning for indef-protection of a page - "likely to be vulnerable until Senator Clinton drops out of the presidential campaign." Pairadox (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jason Gissing

Hi! Sorry to remove your tag (always grateful to taggers) but what made you think that there was no claim of notability in this article? --Dweller (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem...the lack of an assertion of notability? Are former employees of Goldman Sachs, entrepreneurs or tennis players inherently notable? No problem with you removing the tag, but nothing jumped out for me; if the notability stems from the company he founded, the article is a WP:COATRACK and the info belongs in the company article. Regards, скоморохъ ^ѧ 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about COATRACK but that's an AfD argument, not speedy. "He is one of the founders of Ocado , the UK based e-grocer... Ocado is the second largest internet grocery retailer in the world" is certainly enough of a notability claim for not speedying. AfD is thattaway... --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for your help. скоморохъ ^ѧ 13:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Application Level Event

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Application Level Event. The reason is:

By the time I got there, content was added to the point the page was no longer speedy deletable.

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. There's no need for you to go to the trouble of notifying me for declined speedy nominations on vastly improved articles, I trust admin's judgement in these matters. Regards, скоморохъ ^ѧ 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Literary punk genres

Feel free to pile on over there, if you care to... ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lewis Call, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re repetitive strain injury

I see you mentioned repetitive strain injury. There's software you can buy which allows you to use the mouse without clicking the mouse button. When you move a mouse over a link and then stop, it automatically acts as if you clicked on the link. Apparently clicking a mouse button causes more strain than clicking keys on the keyboard because you have to grip the mouse at the same time that you're clicking it, to make sure it doesn't move. The software I'm thinking of can also be easily turned on and off, and also allows you to define keys on the keyboard to act like mouse clicks, so you can move the mouse with one hand and instead of clicking it, press a key with the other hand. I think it's also possible to define keys like that without buying special software, but I don't know how (I forget where I recently saw that mentioned). There are also special mouses (mice?) you can buy that are supposed to make it easier on your hands in one way or another. I'm a very keyboard-oriented person myself -- don't like the mouse so much, for various reasons. I figure, if I want to put information into the computer, I already know what I want to put in -- I shouldn't have to use my eyes to take in information (i.e. watch the cursor move on the screen) just in order to put in information. With the keyboard, I can just type; I don't have to receive information (or it doesn't feel as if I am; I suppose actually I'm feeling the keys, but that's no effort.) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)