User talk:VsevolodKrolikov

Welcome!

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Weirdy Talk 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

conspiracyscience.com

Since you asked, I contacted the author of the conspiracyscience site by joining his facebook group that he links to on the home page. On his contact page he also lists some irc thingy, but when I try to go there, all I see is an empty chat room.--Grandthefttoaster (talk) 08:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Angel

Do you want to help out with the Angel episodes? I've made a list of what needs to be done here - the most important task right now is finding good, reliable sources for the episodes in group 3 or 4, to demonstrate they are independently notable. For every episode I've worked on so far, I've found tons of sources by Googling the episode title with the name of the director/writer/actor, or by looking up the episode on Google Scholar. I can see you're a new editor, so if you do want to help I'll be around to answer any questions you may have. Let me know if you're interested! Kweeket 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kweekit - yes, I'll do what I can to help on the Angel episodes. Thanks for the to do list - it's very helpful.VsevolodKrolikov 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to that - what is your advice on integrating critical analyses of episodes? For example, one academic article cites the events in "Billy" with regard to post-feminist masculinity; another that Billy's uncle being a congressman is part of Dystopian themes in Angel overall. What section should these kinds of things go into? "Readings"? "Interpretations"? I can only take my leads from articles on literary works.VsevolodKrolikov 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to put that sort of thing in either a "Writing" subsection (under "Production details") or in a "Reception" section. I'm really glad you're interested in helping out! Also, if you find information but don't know where to put it, you can always use the Talk page for that episode and we can move it over later. Kweeket 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Engrish

Hi! As high school education is not compulsory education in Japan, I removed 'until 18' from the article. Hope you don't mind. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mari! Fair enough - my lack of time undermined my pedantry; 93% till 18, but that's not what I wrote and it should have been changed.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

False claims of adminship

{{helpme}} User: redwoodneo (an occasional vandal, and judging by his user page, a bit of a comedian) claims he's an admin on his userpage, and he's not. Can an admin handle this please?

I've removed the userboxes.  Chzz  ►  00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User 74.95.210.25

{{helpme}} user:74.95.210.25 has been vandalising again, and is on a last warning. Could an admin please sort it out? Thank you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yamanote and Shitamachi

Just because I don't care about the articles anymore does not mean they should go back to the flowery, unencyclopedic, and poorly formatted articles that existed before I found them a few days ago. You've just rejuvenated my interest in the pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How to revert

Hi, VsevolodKrolikov. You wanted to know how to revert a page. It's actually very simple. Go to the history page, open the past version you want to revert to and save. Yoroshiku and thanks. urashimataro (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I was trying to use the revert button, which didn't work. Arigatou ne. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, people have reverted the edits I did on Karl Rove, but apparently they aren't communicating on the talk page until they do it. Also, I did put in rationales for deletions/additions in the edit summaries. Please be patient with me, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong

Thanks. It's not good to hear that he has made other people unhappy, but at least I feel that it is not just me that he has annoyed. Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

I would appreciate it if you removed my user talk from your watchlist. Things that happen on my user talk page are frankly none of your business.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know that wikipedia hosted private pages. Or that an editor (an experienced one!) biting a newbie like that should be considered a private matter. I was just trying to make sure that new editors don't get pushed away like that, particularly when they raise entirely valid concerns. It's the second time in a few days I've had to go to someone's talkpage to reassure them they shouldn't be put off editing because of your actions. I'll take you off my list as a show of good faith, but I want to make it clear it's actually none of your business what is on other editors' watchlists. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is my business if you admit that my user talk page is on your watchlist. But that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I've been seeing you kinda screw up on linking pages in the past week. To link to some other website (or to an internal diff), please use the following: [1]. If you want to say something in the link, then use a space after the URL and not the bar, as seen in the following: Wikipedia.org. To link to an internal page, all you have to do is use brackets as the following Main Page. To put alternate text, use a bar between the page name and the alternate text as in the following: English Wikipedia Main Page. It seems to me you've been confusing that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there's something up with this computer (it's a mac, and I'm not used to them); the | bar doesn't seem to want to work properly. I'll try cutting/pasting other links to see if that works.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember, you only need one bracket for external links. Not two.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Condoleezza - Condolezza - Condoleeza

I did a history merge on the article so that all the edits could be in one place. You can now easily find the very first edit to Rice's article, which was anything but defamatory! :-) Graham87 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Vandalism on Russia

Hi, unfortunately I accidentally pressed the rollback link of the Russia article and even if I closed the browser immediately seems that I reverted a good edit. However, I apologise I didn't come back to verify in that moment! Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the work on rescuing the Zarhok article. I would have liked to have done more on it myself, but unfortunately ya govoryu po-Russkii ochen plokho :) Grutness...wha? 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Actually, the infobox needs a bit of work - I don't know enough about templates yet to know how to convert it, or if the original was a russian wiki specific template.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cord blood

Hi VsevolodKrolikov. Thanks for letting me know. Glad to see everything's worked out now. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks for keeping my talk page free of troll shyte. Much obliged. — Satori Son 17:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Madonna

Thanks for the advice; it's just that I'm getting really, really fed up with reading introductions to musicians' articles which are obviously written by a gushing fan eager to emphasise that their idol is oh so much more than just a mere musician (the Wu-Tang Clan one being the most preposterous). I mean let's not beat around the bush here, Madonna is a singer for god's sake. Her acting career admittedly probably has one or two roles clearance over the level needed to merit it being mentioned in the first sentence. She has made some minor business ventures in the entertainment industry, yes, but so has every other person in the entertainment industry who's reached a similar level of success (in the form of production companies, record labels, agencies, merchandising, etc). Indeed, it's almost impossible to achieve the kind of level of pop culture penetration Madonna has achieved without doing so. The bottom line is, if someone who knows absolutely nothing about Madonna opens the article, the most coherent introduction they can be given is "Madonna is a singer". Even including the "actress" part confuses things, but I really can't be bothered arguing that so I'll let it go. Her business ventures are extensions of her career as a musician.

There are lots of things which make Wikipedia look ridiculous, but instantly cringeworthy first sentences/paragraphs are one of the one of the most obvious. A arent-they-fantastic opening sentence sets the tone for the entire article, and the reader will give the information that follows less credence if they think the entire thing is curated by a drooling superfan. Jamieli (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about the gushing, it's just that Madonna is a successful businesswoman. Ironically, I thought your change to "musician" was flattering; she's a very successful producer of pop in addition to being a performer, but she doesn't play much.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But...if she's a "entrepreneur" so are a billion other people in the entertainment industry. Anyone who's done absolutely anything other than just release records or act in films is either a "entrepreneur" or a "humanitarian". Anyone who's bought stock in anything ever is an "entrepreneur" if you want to be that generous about it. I could go around adding "entrepreneur" to Kanye, Eminem, Prince etc and it probably wouldn't get removed, but that's because Wikipedia's policy of requiring only a teeny weeny easy-twistable little source for citation is inevitably geared towards adding stuff rather than removing stuff (bullshit newspaper says bullshit, bullshit appears in article sourced to bullshit newspaper, article becomes bullshit article). And I looked at the article you linked to in your revert (I hadn't before my above message) and yeah, all that stuff is just an extension of her career as a musician. It's not like she's set up a company in Innsbruck manufacturing ski-lifts or anything.

And yeah, musician is probably seen as more complimentary, but regardless of my opinion on Madonna's vocal abilities, the voice has to be seen as a musical instrument. There's no other way to describe the way it's used by, say, Billie Holiday, or Al Green, or Rakim. Unfortunately the flip side of that is that everyone down to Soulja Boy and Paris Hilton become "musicians". Jamieli (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Two points of fact 1) Considering madonna has acted in over 22 films I'd say that's enough to warrant mentioning it in the first sentence, just out of common sense. 2) By definition of the word: someone who specializes in taking responsibility for and making judgemental decisions that affect the location, the form, and the use of goods, resources, or institutions, billions of people within the entertainment industry and out are entrepreneurs - the incorporation of Maverick being madonna's reason for the label; Being a stock owner by contrast is a different subject, as you are simply buying into a pre-established business - and I speak as a business major and a non-Madonna-fan. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I absolutely agree with Madonna should be labelled secondarily) an actress and an entrepreneur, and have no disagreement with your posting. Indeed on the Madonna page I've highlighted the lack of information about this side of her activities. My issue generally with the article has been not that Madonna isn't a very talented person who's had a great impact (she clearly is, and the evidence is there to cite), it's that the article in places has a rather fannish tone to it (mish-mash quotation of hagiography being an example) that is unnecessary, unencyclopaedic, and for those who are fans of Madonna I want to say quietly it's less persuasive of her talents as a result. (Quietly, because that kind of persuasion is not the job of wikipedia.) The musician thing I think is misleading, which is why I don't support any of the changes that Jamieli wanted; she's a performer and a recording artist much more than a musician per se. Singers are technically musicians, but I would personally prefer to reserve the label for people with notable (and paid for) talent for a particular instrument.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the lead. I still like the lead with a total chronological order, but it may simply be cutting down some information for better brevity. Granted she done a lot of miserable films, but a golden globe for best actress is not be ignored. Maybe if you used your sandbox to draft a new Lead, we could all pick at it until we can find something to agree upon? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'm happy to try that - in the next couple of days (marking season at the moment). I don't want to downplay the golden globe, I simply want to have what seems to me to be a fair intro to her different careers, and the film one is fairly represented as being more than the golden globe, and not on the same level of success as business and music.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been browsing google books and I came across Understanding Popular Music By Roy Shuker. The first paragraph on page 128 touches on the difference between talent and calculated manufacturing and mentions this is a commonly held criticism. Similarly Battleground: women, gender and sexuality‎ - Page 321 talks about Madonna using sex to exploit producers in order to become successful and points to a rolling stone article calling her an "unqualified" success. The last paragraph on page 18 and on to page 19 of Music, space and place: popular music and cultural identity talks about Madonna and her success based on her production teams. There is also a quote in Popular Music: The rock era By Simon Frith on page 403 that shoots squarely at Madonna. These are the types of critiques I'm looking for. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. I've pasted this post onto the Madonna talk page. (I'm still keen on reflecting the fact that some other pretty big artists have expressed a specific resentment against Madonna's path to success, if we can agree on how to source it.).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I know you're frustrated, but don't take it personally. WP:BLP has become my sole reason for editing wikipedia its seems, out of a pure unrelenting hatred of tabloid journalism. Society has come so low that we are far more willing to tear down individuals rather than build them up, or at the very least give them due credit. I find that appalling on several levels. Criticism has its place, but what I see (as you put it) as a subconcious POV is that a number of editor will go above and beyond the call of duty to source criticism of an individual without any regard to their basic human dignity using WP:NPOV as a cover. This is not a criticism of you or your editing, but an explaination as to why editors who are partial to BLPs or pop music are reluctant to say anything goes when it comes to biographies, especially celebrity bios. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you! I'm not taking things personally, but just getting a little annoyed at what I feel is the ground shifting all the time. I really want to edit the adoption section, but I'm leaving it a day so as not to appear to be editing in a bad mood.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rex Armistead

I have nominated Rex Armistead, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Armistead. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the cites. But the first thing that caught my attention was in the opening paragraph: "a co-ordinated attempt to smear former President Bill Clinton by certain figures in the Right-wing US media." I'm sorry, but whenever I hear "left-wing" or "right-wing" US media, that sets off the "bias" alarm bells. That some of the cites include James Carville and Joe Conason - both of whom are pretty open supporters of the Democratic party - doesn't help your case. Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, the article must be written to be non-biased. To do otherwise would be a disservice. Wikipedia is not an op-ed page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the opening line, in case, as you believe, people will see left-wing and right-wing as weasel words. Carville and Conason are two sources out of fourteen; the statement I sourced to Carville can be sourced elsewhere; it's a fact, not an opinion. The only opinion that comes from Conason is the remark of who was promoting Armistead to do these various things - that can go if need be, although Armistead was effectively pushed out of the Mississippi police force once Williams lost office. (I didn't include that, as it would have been my own WP:synth.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

{{help me}} I am having difficulties getting pages to post correctly on the AfD log. I am trying to load up Hunglish and Onaka (grape)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that part II of the instructions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion had not been completed.

The pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunglish and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onaka (grape) did not have the "afd2" template. I fixed them with this edit and this edit, and I think it's OK now - it is displaying them correctly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 29. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  08:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think the problem was that you were confusing two processes - proposed deletion or prod, and articles for deletion or AfD. Prod is for probably uncontroversial deletions, and doesn't require a discussion, whereas AfD is where it might be disputed, and is always discussed. I put the correct template on the Hunglish page to reflect that it is being discussed at AfD. AfD always trumps prod. Fences&Windows 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Veneration of the dead and Ancestor worship

I performed the merge that you were looking for admin help to do. The article is now at Veneration of the dead. Some of the content might still be duplicated between sections from the two different articles (particularly in the lede); someone more knowledgeable than I about the topic could probably do a better job merging them. -Mairi (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! If you need any other admin assistance, let me know, I'd be happy to help. -Mairi (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of a word

Forbes is not an ancient historian. He may be a professor of Ancient History; but that's not the same thing, unless he's several centuries old himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case you'd better get busy and move this page, write to this esteemed institution, ask Routledge to pulp and reprint this book and take Cambridge University archivists to task for this. I can see the possibility of confusion for a few people, but I would assume that if the name "Chris Forbes" follows the term "Ancient Historian", most readers are going to understand that it doesn't mean there was someone called Chris living in Rome of the first century CE ;-) Ancient Historian is how these people are commonly described.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sofia Rotaru's revenues

Thank you for responding, I would appreciate if you could leave a word here Talk:Sofia Rotaru, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erikupoeg, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sofia_Rotaru. Thank you very much in advance. I agree with you that the issue is quite simple, but a user has turned it in a major discussion on numerous talk pages, having as argument only "all means are good to exclude this info"...--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

-- this is a copy of the messgae left on the Russia Wiki Project talk page.--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Times

Why is London Times my neck of the woods? :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah - my mistake - I had a brain fart and thought I'd seen on your talkpage you were American. My deepest, sincerest apologies (bows head in wiki shame)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no my friend, nothing like that! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting logged out

I was going to post this to your question at WP:EAR but since that conversation looks wrapped up, I thought it better to mention it here. To help avoid future iterations of the problem, you can change the save button to a different color. Once you get used to it, anytime you are going to save and the button has turned back to a normal color, you'll know you're not logged in. Many users employ this method to attempt to avoid the problem. It's not perfect because it won't alert you if you got logged out just before you're about to save on the same screen. But it will alert you if you're navigating around completely unaware. Anyway, if you want to try it, create User:VsevolodKrolikov/monobook.css with the text:

/* Turn the "Save page" button green if I'm logged in */
INPUT#wpSave {
   background-color:#88ff88;
}

You can, of course, choose a different color by changing the Hexadecimal color code. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. However I'm not sure I've got it right. The only time I get the button to go green is when I preview the page User:VsevolodKrolikov/monobook.css, not when editing or previewing other articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Clearing your cache should take care of it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Sorry, I did not realize that. I was thinking minor meant small changes, like a sentence, reference etc. Won't happen again. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove Edits

Accordeeing to Newsweek, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, dedveloped the list of eight proseecutors to be fired last October, with input from the White House.[72] Sampson sent an email thate stated "[T]he vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80-85 percent I wsdould guess, are doing a great jobe, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Later in the e-mail, Sampson wrotddce that home-state senators may reesist replacing prosecutors "[t]hey recommended. That said, if Karl thinks there would be peolitical will to do it, then so do I."[73]. It emerged from other emasils that Timothy Griffin, a former Rove aide, was the proposed replacement for fired attorney Henrdxy Cummins.[74] ee You havee made it very unclear what the Sampson email was about. In addition, at the time of the emawiwel, Kyle Sampson was John Ashcroft's Chief of Staff. Alberto Gonzales was stfill White House Coeunsel. Your politics is showing. I think we need a higher level of oversight inf editing in the Rwove article. f ef Yofu don't have any right to deliberately muddy the water. My edit was perfectly fine and should haafve remained.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (sUTC) df

fFirst of all, read up on WP:AGF. Accusing another editor of trying to "muddy tshe water" is notf good faith, especially as my edits addressed your criticism that the text impliedd it was one emaifl, by making it clear it was not. Secondly, this is a content issue; you don't need to bring it hefre. I shall cut and paste your comments on the talk page there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:02, 11 August f2009 (UTC)