User talk:Skomorokh/deset

Just because someone fixes an article with a bit of humour doesn't mean you have to revert it completely. Just take out the humour and leave the improvements. Also, you even reverted the many spelling errors. Ergo, i reverted your revert.

I see...I'll be sure to take heed of your anonymous, vague and unspecific comments. скоморохъ 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please see the discussion here

I've posted a question here. It seems to me ridiculous to leave something in that is verifiably wrong, but I'm curious to see what the policy wonks have to say about it. Murderbike (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, totally, I've never seen that board before, sounds useful, or like a clusterfuck. Murderbike (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it all together again. The content that user adds can't be kept. Not sure how to go about it if he/she keeps adding it.... SGGH ^speak! 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out. There's real work to be done, elsewhere, where the rules don't protect every vandal with a web browser. Feel free to make use of the resources at the Libertarian Labyrinth. Libertatia (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, best of luck here. I've got to work elsewhere. But the "Labyrinth" will start to have lots of material not available in any of the other digital libraries. I'll poke in from time to time, to see if I can help with sources. Libertatia (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure how to respond to your message, and I certainly do not know how to respond to the message left on the Bizarro fiction talk page. I am flummoxed. Thank you for your message. ---

Have you seen this [1]? ---

I had been dimly aware of the collaboration, bud hadn't heard much about it in recent years. Strange the things the internet produces; the imagery is fascinating. скоморохъ 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The opening image shows a strong influence of Brueghel (especially his Triumph of Death) and Bosch, through the lens of Dali, and probably Ernst as well. Very striking. ---

The'FortyFive' 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect, the images in the article break up the monotny of the text, and as they do not overlap, there is no rationale for reducing the number of images. If you examine Wikipedia's other

featured articles, you'll notice a similar proliferation of images. Regards, скоморохъ 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In your learned opinion, do you think it is necessary to have an article entitled

Looking at the articles, there is no reason to keep

problematic, the Spectacle itself clearly qualifies as a notable topic in its own right, independent from the book. скоморохъ 23:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Damn, you've been busy! I went to the kitchen to make dinner, and I return to find that you've done all my work for me. Thank you. Your argument above is more than persuasive. I still intend to move the Spectacle article to some other, more appropriate, title, though I am still uncertain as to what. ---

The'FortyFive' 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've made a suggestion to that effect on the talkpage. In retrospect, it might have been better just to redirect the

political spectacle article, as it was mostly incoherent rubbish. I'll leave the cleaning up for you to do! скоморохъ 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Blast and damn! There I thought I had the rest of the evening off to get drunk... I'll get the broom and dust pan. Meh. ---

The'FortyFive' 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd be very happy to, I checked the article a while back and noticed your stellar work. It might take a day or two before I add a review as I am not thoroughly familiar with the featured article criteria. Regards, скоморохъ 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had just blocked the sockpuppet and was archiving the page per

No problem, sorry for jumping the gun rolling back your edit, and thank you for inspecting the case. Regards, скоморохъ 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your speedy request -- although this page definitely is an essay, it most certainly is not a "test page". It should go to AfD. - Revolving Bugbear 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In assuming good faith, it's not in the best spirit of the project to implicitly cite a new editor as soapboxing, but I won't contest the matter. скоморохъ 21:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're fast. I was just about to add a speedy deletion template but found the article had already been deleted. Good work. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, my pleasure скоморохъ 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOFIXIT

I see...скоморохъ 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Cheers! ---

Thanks ever so much, let's hope this settles the matter. скоморохъ 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, of course. I hope so as well. I was half-tempted to ask for your input over at the

The'FortyFive' 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! You have done considerable work on the {{Anarchism sidebar}}. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Anarchy is in the title of the book I added. I'm not exactly sure what kind of anarchism he espoused but it still falls under the general summary of anarchism nonetheless. Why are you splitting hairs with me on this exactly?

Nozick is not an anarchist, nor is the book an anarchist book - it simply does not belong. He espoused a

Anarchy, State and Utopia has a useful Criticism section where his differences with anarchists are explained. Regards, скоморохъ 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually was not aware of the the term minarchist until just now. You could actually be a little less on the snappy side though. Cheers, and thanks for the explanation.

talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries, I hope you find the concept useful. Apologies if you find my manner objectionable. скоморохъ 01:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. I have thicker skin than that. No need to apologize, this has been my easiest revert discussion to date.

talk) 01:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this and give me your opinion? I would appreciate it. ---

Of course, but I'm I'm not quite sure what outcome you are now looking for...the discussion is closed, and the closing admin's decision was, I think, apt. I personally see no value whatseover in having a "Situationism" [sic] category, but I don't think it's kosher to renominate it for deletion right after your last attempt did not meet with community approval. Perhaps the best thing to do is to have a Category:Situationist International and replace Category:Situationism with that where appropriate. A secondary source to the effect that there was no such thing as Situationism should quell any objections. Tell me more of your thoughts and I might be of better help...скоморохъ 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, everything was in turmoil yesterday, and I was rushed when I left that message.

No, I haven't any intention of nominating it again. I was sort of surprised by the lack of attention the nomination received, and I found John's comments and responses perplexing. His objections were never quite clear to me. At any rate, what I was asking for from you was more your overall opinion on the discussion, and if you had any advice on how I might have handled it better. Frankly, I think I made a sound argument. I like your idea, though, of a separate category. I think I will do just that. ---

The'FortyFive' 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Congratulations! You did great work improving that article. ---

Thank you; it was something of a struggle to find sources to pin down the elusive and anonymous Crimethinkers. скоморохъ 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. I decided to put some pictures of the actual locations used, and at this time of year (and near dusk), they look exactly like the movie. Hope that makes the reasoning behind the bridge picture clear. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of bridge shown in the newer pic is the left end in the older pic (the one taken in summertime). At this time of year it's easier to see where the hill is from the view in the summer pic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prods on these redirects because

I suspected as much; thanks for responding swiftly to my errant actions. I may nominate the articles for a mass RFD at a later date. скоморохъ 11:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]