User talk:Demidov2007

Welcome!

Hello, Demidov2007, 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:

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! -Razorflame (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melitopol

I took a crack at proofreading your article entitled Melitopol, but I am sorry to say that I lack the ability to help proofread it completely. All I did was just fix the more general stuff in the first few sections of the article. If you are in need of some other help, please contact any administrator for further assistance. Thanks, -Razorflame (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I could but use the term "proofreader" in appropriate way. Currently, I only care of absence of obvious mistakes. Thanks for the fixing. Besides, you have improved the English of mine, and I am thankful for that either. Once anyone fixes my grammar, I do not make similar mistakes any more. So you fixed also many articles-to-be.

When I finish the article (it is not I who has started it, by the way), I will definitely translate some of your contributions into Russian. :)

I feel that my duty is translation...

A. Demidov (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melitopol

Hey, thanks for the note. Terrific translating job. I had a look at the article and did a lot of copy editing myself, though it was already quite good. I'd say the only areas that remain problematic are those where there's ambiguity due to either wording or inadequate information - I'll bring them up on the article's talk page so everyone can work on them.

Good question about a list of copy editors. I think you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, a group whose goal is to improve grammar and style in articles, right? Members are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. You can go to individual members or leave a note on the wikiproject's talk page (or follow whatever instructions they have for listing articles, they may have one, I didn't check). Anyway, I don't know how much help they'll be in this particular case, because as I said, the problems are mostly content-related now, which someone knowledgeable will have to fix.

Thanks for getting involved in the project! Glad to have you helping out. Keep in touch and let me know on my talk page if you want to discuss anything or if I can do anything for you. Peace, delldot talk 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy S Tenyu

You're right, its wording is very unclear. I tried to fix it up, but without more information I couldn't clarify it much. So I just tagged it with {{unclear}}. Does the Russian version ru:Бой с тенью (фильм, 2005) have more info? Thanks for the heads up, delldot talk 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the Boy S Tenyu article, it definitely needs it! Of the two sources, I'd think the news source would be better, but if you can you might as well cite them both. Thanks again for all the hard work, you're quite nice yourself! delldot talk 02:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My star

Why thank you! My first-ever copy editor's barnstar! Yay! :D delldot talk 09:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome!
A. Demidov (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowboxing

Well, it would have to be Shadowboxing (film), because Shadowboxing is about whatever the practice of shadowboxing is (I have no idea, but that is why Wikipedia is so great!) I'll look at what they have done with other foreign films as far as leaving them in their original languages or translating them, but I suspect you're right. I'll let you know what I figure out. I'll have a look at the article and reword as needed. Thanks for the note, it's a pleasure hearing from you as usual. Peace, delldot talk 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, a quick look at Category:Russian films confirms that you're right: almost all of the titles are in English. Would you like to move the page or shall I? delldot talk 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I saw that the ru: link lead to an empty article, so on a hunch (that is, a suspicion) I took out the part in parentheses and did a search just for Бой с тенью, which led me to a disambiguation page, from which I was able to find the article. I took about three semesters of Russian several years ago in college - Ya govoryu ochen nemnovo po-ruski! I hardly remember anything, but I can make out the alphabet, and a lot of words are cognates, so I can sometimes figure things out.

You're right, shall is rarely used anymore (at least not in the US, where I'm from). It was kind of a weird (i.e. unusual) way for me to phrase that; however that exact usage (Shall I...? where you're asking whether the person would like you to do something) is common enough not to be totally strange. You can also use "should" there.

You should be able to move the page. I think you should try, so you'll know how in the future. Look at the top of the article, near the "edit this page" button; there should be a button that says "move". Click on this, and enter "Shadowboxing (film)" in the "To new title" field. Explain your reason in the reason box, and click "move page". I can help if you need it. Peace, delldot talk 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Just leave me another note if you want me to move it after all. Peace, delldot talk 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typed wrong info

I see you moved the film with no problem, good job! You know, I realized I made an error: I recommended Shadowboxing (film, 2005), but there's no Shadowboxing (film), maybe we should move it to that, since the 2005 isn't really necessary?

For the template on the section that needs to be verified, how about {{dubious}}? I'm afraid that the info from the forum might qualify as "trivia", which we probably shouldn't include since trivia sections are discouraged. Also, the forum is probably not a reliable source since it's probably not subject to editorial review. But if you see an article in a news source about an error or that type of thing, we could include it in a "reception" section about how the film was received by the press (i.e. what they thought of it). Peace, delldot talk 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made no error

There is also ru:Бой с тенью (фильм, 1978), so everything is fine. Besides, it is I who proposed the name. You said Shadowboxing (film).

As for the forum, I was about to include the obvious info. If you watched the film, and read the notes, you just exclaim "Indeed!". Also, they cited some news, it not trivia data, I hope.

I want to upload some pictures for the article of Melitopol, but I don't know does it have copyright at all. I put the question on W:Media copyright questions, nobody's answered.

By the way, if you cannot understand me whenever, you could read the article of Runglish. I found an error there, however, how can I fix it? I have no idea. There is a joke in the article. They analyse it, but translation "Asks!" is inappropriate, because original word Спрашиваешь! relates to 2nd. sg. person, not to the 3rd. as it was explaned. Simple turning "Спрашиваешь!" into "Спрашивает!" will never help, because one may not say that in Russian. It must be replaced by "Он еще спрашивает!", but it is going to destroy some explanations. The variant I always heard ("Ask!", not "Asks!") destroys everything, but it is traditional. What am I supposed to do?

Than you for your edits and control!

A. Demidov (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, in that case I'd recommend Shadowboxing (2005 film), which I think is more consistent with other films that have this same issue.

About the forum stuff, it's fine as long as you make sure to provide reliable sources for everything you add. It can't just be something that's obvious, because that's still original research.

About the pictures for Melitopol, I'm not sure, what's the site they are from? Chances are good that they're copyrighted and we can't use them (almost everything published is), but if it says that they can be used by anybody, that might mean they're in the public domain. Can you email the museum and ask?

About the Runglish joke, I'm in way over my head here (i.e., I am not skilled enough in Russian to be able to handle the question), but it seems to me that you could just change "Спрашиваешь!" to the correct wording in Russian, and then change the English to whatever the direct translation of that is. It will still sound bizarre in English, so the point of the joke will remain. You'll of course have to change any part of the explanation that is affected, as well. I would suggest making the suggestion on the talk page, basically explaining what you told me, and suggesting the change. Maybe someone else will fix it, or at least you can see whether people think the change is a good idea. Peace, delldot talk 06:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture questions

I'm afraid if we can't get more information about the pictures we will not be able to use them freely. We have to figure out whether they're in the public domain, or whether there's some restriction on their use, e.g. you're allowed to copy them, but only for non-commercial use or something. Otherwise, as you say, we won't know what license to tag them with.

On the other hand, depending on their subject, the pictures may be available under "fair use". See, if a picture is not replaceable (i.e., someone couldn't just go take another picture and upload it under a free license), you can make the claim that you're using the material under the fair use section of US copyright law. This is very tricky (i.e. difficult and complicated), and you'd have to read and understand WP:FAIR and make sure the picture meets the criteria before attempting it. But it seems to me if it's a historical picture showing something that doesn't exist anymore, that would be fair use (whereas if it's just a picture of a lake or something, I'd wait for someone to upload a free one, since there are a lot of disadvantages to fair use material). If we can't figure out more about what the pictures are licensed under, I think we should go for fair use, but it would be kind of a shame since it's likely that they're in the public domain anyway. Note that I'm not very good at image stuff, so I might not be the best person to ask, and this advice may not be very good. Peace, delldot talk 14:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The domain is not public...

...but the pictures are. They were taken in the USSR. That time, the term of "copyright" didn't even exist. De jure everything was common, however, only copyright was vanished de jure and de facto. The hard copies may be copied even today, and as for the site, it seems not to be a public domain. It does not have the copyright for these pictures, anyway. I have actually seen the photos on the other sites, but that domain has many historical photos together.

I just cannot choose the necessary license. No one is fit, because the pictures cannot be online until they are scanned. Even if I go there and rescan them, how may I upload them? It is not my work, while all of the other licenses apply to online only. That's just ununderstandable for me.

Fair use would be good for the picture. You will understand why, if you check the link out. Thanks!

A. Demidov (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S You said you were not very good at image stuff, but believe me, I am much worse at it!

OK, I checked on IRC (chat) and they said that the site that you're copying the images from doesn't matter, all that matters is the ORIGINAL copyright. So you won't have to rescan the images. All we have to do is figure out what license to use for images taken in the USSR. It sounds like {{pd-because}}, but we should find out if there is a more specific license. I'll look into it. Peace, delldot talk 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links left on Petts Wood, St Paul's Cray and St Mary Cray

Hi there

Apologies I did not see your message for Petts Wood before I re added it. These are my first postings for Wikipedia and they were left in good faith. The site that my wife and I run for the BR5 postcode is a genuine community website with genuine community content that is, we believe, of benefit to the community. This is the reason I posted the links.

If they have been removed because they form part of a commercial venture then that is true but only to the same extent, for example, that the Petts Wood Village link is commercial. I would contend that our site is more valid as it is updated more frequently and is, therefore, of greater use to potential users.

Please feel free to come back to me.

Many thanks

Jamie

Thanks very much

Thank you for your advice. The points are noted and I will try to make the necessary adjustments.

Best regards

jamie

Northen pike (uk:Щука звичайна)

Thank you for your response, I was busy changing talk page templates, and noticed that the Ukrainian article was a feature article. I can help with grammar and spelling, but I don't know anything at all about the Ukrainian symbols in the alphabet at all! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC) ==[reply]

Re: Spam

Yes, you're right that the username may be inappropriate. Did they respond at all to your request to change it? I don't think they should necessarily write an article about the company, for two reasons: first, the company may not meet WP:CORP, the notability criteria for companies. Second, they are obviously involved in the company, so it would be a conflict of interest, a violation of WP:COI. So even if the article should be written, it shouldn't be by them.

If you want to use only some of the text in a template, you can go to the template page, view the source, and cut and paste the text that you want.

I guess I'd check back with them in a couple days to see if they've responded at all to your request. If they haven't, I'd leave them another message about it, especially since it's possible that they didn't see the original template. I guess if they don't respond in a while we'll have to take further action. Peace, delldot talk 07:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

How about this one for those images? You'll notice that there are strict criteria, so not all of the pictures may meet them. We'll have to keep looking if that's the case. Peace, delldot talk 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re ShuttleBox

Thanks much for dealing with User:ShuttleBox on the Hillary Rodham Clinton redirect thing. Your reversions were correct; I've left an account of the rationale on User_talk:ShuttleBox#History_of_the_redirect. Wasted Time R 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hillary Rodham Clinton Controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; ShttleBox's edits amount to simple vandalism because they appear to be in bad faith. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Pike

Thanks for your note - translating that Ph section would help I think and the pictures as well. The images on the UK some are the same, but some are different, and more pertinent to the storyline. Perhaps after this, we could do a good article nomination and see if the CA version can rise in the ranks as did the UK version. Thanks again. SriMesh | talk 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I see your newly started translation page, and I kind of started the same kind of idea...pasted your translation section, and article english section, and merged the two, and added some references. It is at User:SriMesh/Sandbox/Northern Pike. Will that work to co-jointly work together, you can let me know section be section as you go through the Ukrainian, and I will attempt to merge grammar, and both article concepts as you go along. I stated the color серо-бурой as olive from the English version... I kind of skipped over крапинами, when I merged> :-) In the english version I eliminated the gallery so the pictures could intersperse with the prose, as many Good Article Nominations say ... no galleries ... Thanks again for your work. Let me know if the double sandbox type pages,.. one for you and one for me ...works for you. Kind Regards...SriMesh | talk 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I won't be in for a day; maybe two. Reason: a lot of translating job.

A. Demidov Talk 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's going to take two more days. See, I was ill, and was able to stay home; now, I am extremely behind my university work. I ought to make a hard copy of the article to finish translation more quickly, so I'll make it tomorrow.

A. Demidov Talk 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: copyright and citing

Hi Demidov! I'm so glad to see you're back. delldot talk 04:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:D delldot talk 15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] delldot talk 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) delldot talk 01:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Battle on the streets 1943.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Battle on the streets 1943.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Chesdovi (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melitopol

Hello. I am a new participant in Wikipedia, so please forgive any lapses in protocol.

I think there may be some missing historical references in the article about Melitopol. This is based on a combination of information from Brian Boyd's critical biography of Vladimir Nabokov (The Russian Years) and a reference in The Gift by Nabokov, which clearly has many autobiographical elements. A cousin and boyhood friend of VN's was Yuri Rausch, who was killed in the revolution in early 1919 (Boyd, p. 158). In The Gift, VN refers to a cousin of Fyodor who was killed in the battle of Melitopol (Vintage International ed., p. 86).

While I would not expect that it would be practical to make these connections to Nabokov and his cousin in the Wikipedia article, it does seem that the history portion of the article should reflect that Melitopol was the site of a battle in the Russian Revolution in early 1919, assuming my inference can be proved to be correct.

Thanks Terrywalsh445 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]