User talk:Swliv/Archive01

Hi,

This is an archive page, 3 July 2008 to 23 September 2011. Please don't post anything or edit anything here. If you would like to address any of the subjects covered on this page, please link to the subject here, for example User talk:Swliv/Archive01#Gillibrand for #Gillibrand, at User talk:Swliv.

Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Swliv, 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:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Startstop123 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Raptor3d

Don't be discouraged! Be Bold. Any other questions, just ask here or on my talk page. Cheers! the_ed17 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

About the edits to the F-22 article

Strange, I don't remember doing anything like that. Well, if you have something helpful towards the article, feel free to add it! RaptorR3d (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Procurement history, current last line, "... April 6, 2009 ..."Swliv (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Another round

I notice that in the above two exchanges, I was addressed by/presumably addressing two different users. That second "r." ... Well, I'm learning.

Mostly I come back here because I've left sit the following exchange ("Mixed reaction ...") over on Johnfos' talk page for a couple of weeks. As my last entry in the exchange says, I thought I might come back to it after I returned, about a week ago now. I've now realized, at least for the foreseeable, I won't be going back to it. ... In short, at least for now, I've moved on, and I'm ready to let ... that effort sit where it ended. However, the other party has a one-month-and-off policy for his/r page, and I'm not ready to lose the exchange on that sched., so I thought I'd bring it over here.

Post script: On a lighter note, I've spent a lot of time, since returning, on the Sanford Robinson Gifford article, originally over the Mansfield-painting controversy, then just ... for the joy ... of ... the information available, and the durable beauty of the artist's work. Swliv (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixed reaction to Maple Ridge Wind Farm: Why a deletion?

I can't figure why you deleted this good report I added back in April to Wind power in the United States, in one of your "trimmings." (Somehow, the history on the page doesn't now seem to go back to the date of your deletion, but I found it once today and you should be able to find it (with that "trimming" and "wind," say, as search terms) in your own contributions history. I think it was the first "trimming" after my April entry.)

"Mixed feelings from neighbors of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm are reported.[4]" was my line. Footnote 4 was: "Wind Farm Buffets Family, Town Relations" by David Baron, National Public Radio, April 9, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-04-09. I've updated the footnote contents to reflect my current best-footnoting standard. I guess I'd also upgrade the line I'd like to see (back) in the entry to: "NPR in April, 2008 reported mixed feelings from neighbors of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm."

As back in April as I recall, Maple Ridge is one of the pictured projects in the entry, near the top. Going back into it, today, I'd probably like to see a note/footnote to reflect the NPR story in/on the photo caption, also. Seems fair.

The rest of the "Aesthetics, the environment and quality of life" section, by you to some degree and others (I added the "quality of life" part of the heading; you didn't delete that), now seems to me to incorporate phrases like "helped to increase community approval" which, along with deletion of any reports to the contrary like mine, ends up feeling like pro-industry propaganda.

(A) I appreciate you seem to have done a lot to create this entry, while I've just dropped in one reference I came upon, and liked. (B) I generally like the idea of wind power. But I really react against the bulldozing of public opposition by corporate interests, even if as here those interests have a pretty good argument for "higher public good." And the squelching here in Wikipedia of bona fide reports .... Yecch. How can you rationalize it?Swliv (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm sorry but I just don't follow what you are trying to say. You're asking about about something that happened back in April? Maybe try and include some Help:Diffs. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Further poking around (by me) this morning (Happy New Year!) has led me to the history I couldn't find the second time I looked, yesterday, and your "trim" actually came in May. My original addition (discussed above, and repeated there completely) came April 9, which does seem to be beyond the "last 500" which the history shows.

Here's the whole line from the history:

(cur) (last) 02:28, 25 May 2008 Johnfos (Talk | contribs) (20,079 bytes) (trimming and updating) (undo)

And the link for that "(cur)": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wind_power_in_the_United_States&diff=260726497&oldid=214747620

About 3/4 way down, you'll see (if I'm reconstructing my own course/leading you correctly, here) the Maple line removed.

One apparent offset I noted, further down in the revisions, was the addition of the Baron piece (with what I'm taking to be my retrieval date of 4-09 on it) to the "External sources." I didn't note that yesterday. However, I only take it as a partial offset (if I'm reading it correctly as an offset). To recap my essential point from yesterday, I don't think the AE&QOL section should be purged of negative reports. And I think the Baron report is a good one.

If you come to agree, just say the word and I'll re-add the (revised) line/source as proposed above.

I don't know if that incorporates all the lessons of Help:diff but hopefully it's enough to move our exchange along. Thanks much to you, too.Swliv (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! And thanks for clarifying things...

OK... I think you are concerned about an external link deleted from Wind power in the United States. Right?

Please see WP:EL, which says external links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article". So periodically it is necessary to remove some links.

Your link is also a reference in Maple Ridge Wind Farm and it seems this is the best place for it. Johnfos (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to drag this out, but no, it was an external link added at the same time a line of copy in the article with its footnote was deleted. My line. And I'm holding out for a reinsertion of the line into the QOLife section. And I don't want the external link, in itself or as a substitute for the line in the article.

Yes, it is in the Maple article. I put it there, too. But since Maple is a pictured "poster farm" for the Wind power article, and since the AEQOL section is now, again, devoid of any "local reaction" or negative possibility and full of, I'd have to call it, force majeure (as in, almost, eminent domain) kind of argument (yes, I read it as argument), I'd like the NPR piece back in, for some balance.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your addition is in Maple Ridge Wind Farm and it seems this is the best place for it. We can't cover everything in Wind power in the United States. Have you seen the Environmental effects of wind power, as it would seem relevant to some of your interests? I would refer you to the Talk pages of specific articles for any further discussion. cheers Johnfos (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You make good points, some new, and I appreciate your willingness to engage on this one line. I'm off for a week+ and may not be able to return to this until after that. I do feel closer to satisfaction, though. Thanks.Swliv (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 15 (16 GMT): I'm still ready to let this sit, as I said above (in "Another round"), but I've just looked back at Wind power in the United States, and these lines really do revolt me: "However, when appropriate planning procedures for site selection are followed environmental problems should be minimal. Some people may still object to wind farms, but their concerns should be weighed against the need to address the threats posed by ...." What kind of encyclopedia says what "should" be done? (I.e. I don't believe the writer really can be trusted to "weigh" let's say my concerns.) Your noise pollution is insignificant compared to .... Well. NIMBY .... ... S/he wouldn't even allow a note/source about neighbor concerns into the section. (The section on environment/quality of life!) OK. ... Thoughts welcome. (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillibrand

Hi - I was just going by the sources I've seen, none of which identified him as a political supporter of hers. She was a college intern in his office which I think came through her father, so it's more of a personal association than a political one as far as I've seen. (His standing right next to her is probably more a testament to his interest in getting some camera time than anything, and as a lobbyist in his new life I'm sure an association with a sitting NY senator would be seen as a good thing. But I wouldn't put any of that into the article either unless it was sourced.) I haven't extensively researched the point, but the source I had said that Patgerson's office said he was invited also because he is the only living NY senator (other than Clinton). Your take may be right, but please don't put it in until you have a source that confirms the id as "political supporter". Otherwise making the assumption that because he's there means he's a political supporter is synthesis and/or OR, in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My opening on this was at Tvoz talk page; above is his/r response. I accepted the response, letting the edit stand, though I'd say I remain watchful and intrigued ....Swliv (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sources - Magical Negro

I did indeed go to the blog before I removed it. There is no indication that this blog meets the guidelines for sources having a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Simply having a wikipedia article does not confer upon your blog a "reliable source" standard. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think I implied in my first response to your deletion that you didn't go to the blog before you removed my reference to it. I'm sorry if you felt so.

If it is I who gave no indication that the blog I cited has a reputation for fact-checking, I'd have to concede I did not. But I would say now that I was relying upon the reputations, as demonstrated in their Wiki entries, of the two parties I cited as adequate to -- and here I refine a factor -- meet the guidelines in the "Statements of opinion" subsection of the RS guidelines to which you referred me. In the context of that guideline, I would liken the piece to an Op-ed from someone who comfortably (impressively) brought his own reputation to the opinions stated. Mr. Ridley is not listed as a staff member or contributor to the blog though, with his own picture-header, there appears to be some regularity to his appearance there. Any which way, he stands on his own. And, no, The Wrap is not a "mainstream newspaper" -- the "prime example" in the guideline. But the guideline, also, is not absolute on that point (as I would not want it to be), and I still find the citation I made worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia: as an opinion of adequate substance.

Can you go with that?

Further, by the way, and at risk of muddying the waters, did you look in any detail at the article which we're discussing here? As I said, I'd worked on it before. I see it as an explorative venture, building on the LA Times column and some historical/academic analysis. Analogous perhaps to a William Safire language column. An etymological-discursion-in-the-works. The collection of citations is a crucial, fruitful I believe, process, one well worthy of Wikipedia. Yes, an editor's felt it necessary to require citations for citations, and I agree wholeheartedly and obviously with that. In fact, when I was brought back to the article by the Ridley use of his variant on the term, and I saw the warning relative to citations, I remembered it and my heart was warmed. I had a good citation. A reader could take it, integrate it, go check it out, go further with it. All good, in my opinion. In fact, it was because I went back in to the article yet again, earlier today, to improve my contribution in some small, now forgotten for the moment, way -- to help the process on a little more -- that I discovered your preemptive action. Well, on we go, eh?

(The article on PMRC somehow drew my attention some time ago -- I then put in a fair amount of "clean-up" work on it -- and it comes back to me now, having worked, as I have, to express a sort of philosophy here. Lots of citations, there. Impeccable article, is it? I certainly wouldn't say I, or we, have achieved that, yet. But, hey.)

Cheers, again.Swliv (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bvigate

A tag has been placed on Bvigate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Ritter edit June '09

I was surprised to find you'd moved a substantial block of info from Bruce Ritter's entry to a [section in his name] in Sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia archdiocese. What's the Phila connection? That's not spelled out. I also don't understand the rationale for taking the information out of the individual's entry, if you could explain. Seems part of the individual's legacy. I can see having the overview scandal article, and the individual linked in, but the individuals IMO need to be well documented at the base of the story.

Thanks.Swliv (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I put it into the entry about Philadelphia. I noticed that there was one such Covenant House in that city, which might have been associated to some of the bishops of Philadelphia, although I'm not sure. I guess I'll cancel that particular edit after double-checking on previous motives for making such a change. ADM (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Springfield in Massachusetts diocese

That's all very well, but you are gutting my articles to create other pages with very little information. Tajm (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not your article, it could easily be mine too, but it's not, it doesn't belong to anyone. Also, some of those pages are inappropriate under WP:Attack because they exist only to disparage the bishops. ADM (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they're not my articles but I either created them or substantially added to them. Why don't you just leave that information on the bishops' pages, as well as the pages you create? Tajm (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that some of the information should be left on the bishops' pages, but that all of the available information should be on the scandal entries, in order to paint a more complete picture of the affairs per diocese. I think this is more constructive than just separating the content into the biographical articles of bishops, because many bishops were involved together in the managing process, and were not just acting alone, as certain narratives would have you believe. ADM (talk)

I'm going to jump in here with a cautious leaning toward Tajm and away from ADM. I'm just off the defense, I'll call it, of the Bruce Ritter article against what (see section immediately above, or at User talk:Swliv, re: Ritter) turned out to be a sort-of wacky move of a block of biographical info into a regional "scandal" report which bore no or only tangential connection (regional or any other) to Ritter. Now, I'm not antagonistic automatically to what is clearly substantial efforts by ADM on this and other subjects, but I raised my own concerns about the favoring of the "regional" v. the biographical approach in the Ritter case, and am building on it here. I add my voice to Tajm's "leave that information on the" bio pages. I hear ADM's response about regional (not to mention national and international) management, and Tajm did not defend against ADM's "Attacks" charge, but I think we all lose if the individual bio pages aren't as strong as they can be. If regional/national/international analyses can link the individuals together, SO MUCH the better FOR SURE, but I'll finish by asking ADM to please be careful and thoughtful about pursuing the regional/diosesal strategy you're pursuing at the expense of the biographies.

I'll also note there's a wierd, invisible-on-the-final-page instruction -- in part "Error:must be substituted ...PRODWarning" -- just in front of my entry, here, and I haven't taken the time to research it.Swliv (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to change too many things, I just want to show that many cases were linked together. It makes more sense to link the cases together than to present them as if they all occured by chance, as if no lessons could be learned from the affairs, like it was all just a coincidence. On the contrary, the records show that the bishops were collaborating together the whole time on a diocesan basis and were not acting alone, i.e. there was no single bullet like in the JFK assassination case. ADM (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Swliv. I agree with you! Tajm (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wallace Stegner

Dear "Swliv":

In February, you wrote about Wallace Stegner. I like what you are doing, but there are a few faults to your writing. The passage of Schlesinger lost something in transcription, or how would "facility" be the quality assigned to "partnership?" A partner may have facility when another partner applies pressure to him, but much more understandable would be the word "felicity." It would indicate that the partnership made them happy, not that it was facile -- the personification of the partnership necessary in order to apply the adjective "facile" to it would be unnecessarily contorted.

I thought that I should not cavalierly change it around, because I am not aware of what the quoted passage's vices and virtues are. It seems awkward to quote it precisely, "'...said Schlesinger,' said the next guy." (Sorry but I can't remember exactly what you wrote!) When I was at school, we were warned against metadiscourse; and this is an example of it -- it's just awkward.

Yours sincerely,

David SnowDsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• David--
• I've reread my entry there, and acknowledge its awkwardness. I did do considerable poking around to try to find better sourcing on-line. The double-layer quoting I felt worthwhile because (a) the first individual, Mr. Schlesinger, was of course well known and, while I don't know his connection to WS, I was glad to incorporate the fact of the connection and (b) the second, Mr. Hepworth, had done interviews (see here) with WS as well as the little, unfootnoted bio sketch which I actually could footnote. Yes, I was sort of begging for someone else to better document the quote or elaborate on the subject; but, no, I don't think I'd remove or amend it as it stands. As to the word choice, I can't argue it too far. "Facile" I know can have a negative connotation but I'm not sensing it here; it's just meaning "ease" of relationship, is how I see it. "Felicity" is a nice and more traditional word in the context, but I am not prepared to decide Mr. Hepworth misquoted his source (whatever it was). (You can look at his piece here.)
• I appreciate your gentle attentions to my contribution. ... You're of course free to edit even delete if my rationales don't add up, for you ... though deletion would seem extreme.
• On a format issue of your own: I will ask if you used the "four tildas" sign-off; your sign-off doesn't look quite usual (tilda = ~). The four go at the end of a UserTalk entry and, if you're signed in to Wiki, the four will do the id and time closing, and you don't have to write your name separately. ... I do like having your first name in addition, somehow, though as clear I've chosen the more anonymous ... route.
• Another set of format issues, I'll call them, are where and how to have this type of exchange. I'll put a note of my response over on your user page, but there seems an argument to have it on the discussion page at Wallace Stegner. Well, I'm not going to solve that one, here, now. (And I know this dot-point format's not right; I couldn't come up with "indent.")
• Cheers and all best.Swliv (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this your comment ?

If it is, I think you should be indefintely blocked from Wikipedia for making such a gross personal attack. I was thinking it was either you or user:Tajm. [1] ADM (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, no, it's not my comment! I'll say I had a little trouble finding what you were referring to, and felt the force of your hurt and ire in the meantime. The way you presented the reference, in single brackets, it just shows up as a "[1]" (as you probably know; can see above). I guess I'd do an external link and connect it to the "this" in the headline, or somewhere like that. I was scouring the DSnow response above this paragraph for an attack on him. Anyway, I'm much relieved now to have found the comment, belatedly. NO, it's NOT my comment. I thought our exchanges about Bruce Ritter, and about sexual abuse in Springfield, last month were useful. I felt like User:Tajm and you and I were working toward the same goal, trying to coordinate different approaches, and feel that Tajm would agree. I did choose to add cautious words in favor of Tajm's comment at one point, but Tajm and I are not working together in any way other than that. I hope I represent Tajm's feelings on this correctly, and that you can come to feel the same way, too. I haven't checked yet to see if you've already had an exchange with Tajm on this.

As to the next step relative to the comment, I don't know how one tracks down that # 98.207.234.30 (ISP I think it's called) on the edit, but I'd agree the perpetrator of the comment should be indefinitely blocked. Highly distressing! Please let me know if there's more I can do. I did by mistake the other day put through an edit without having signed in on the page, and hence discovered my ISP# starts 66.6.1. I don't think one can tamper with or override that # -- it's unique to the machine. And I haven't used any other machine for editing in a long time.

All best.Swliv (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a word with emphasis here, and above, after refreshing myself further on the earlier exchanges: "I did choose to add cautious words in favor of Tajm's comment...." Let's hope it all works out. Swliv (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. I'm assuming good faith, although I'd like to do a checkuser on User:98.207.234.30, while keeping in mind that it could be anyone. ADM (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me to do CheckUser. My first exposure to it. Sounds appropriate. Consider this my permission, if you need it. Swliv (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk back on "Brooklyn's Finest"

Hi there. I didn't know it was you, and I hope you didn't take it personally. I've been editing some film related articles, and none of them have included actors' promotion for a particular movie. You know, it's common practice for actors to plug their thing on talk shows; it's hardly some noteworthy marketing strategy. Besides, if we're gonna include this part, we better treat them fairly. I mean, I'm sure Richard Gere, Don Cheadle and Ethan Hawke are doing talk shows as well. So if you really want to add these, I suggest you include their talk show appearances as well. Is that OK? --Artoasis (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no personal affront. (I do have one deadlocked sort-of feud going ... which does, I have to admit, stir the juices, but Brooklyn's Finest (and Lie) so far I think I've kept fully in perspective. If you care to bring your gentle mercies to my tough one, I'd welcome ... observations and/or help ... though ... also ... warn you .... Well, you're a big perple.) ... Mm. ... ... Is any one Wikipedia editor responsible for being encyclopedic? ... That seems to be the central challenge/question you've posed. I've been coming to pose the question for a while, but this is my first full enunciation. (Having described it, I expect there may be a Wiki policy on it. But I'll proceed.) With some caution I would (you can predict, I expect) lean toward a negative answer. If someone else finds RGere on another talk show and wants to take the trouble to promote/add(*) that appearance, they'd of course be free. Meanwhile if my two listings were there, a reader'd at least have them. Another question/challenge you seem to be raising may come from poor statement of my position by me, namely, that somehow I thought the actor-appearances somehow outstanding, either in themselves or as a genre. In themselves, they were pretty good. I wouldn't have spent time on them if I hadn't thought so. But as a genre they were absolutely routine. (Except for the fact that they were virtually head-to-head on competing talk shows. I found that of moderate interest. Not heretofore worthy of note but ....) Are you, if I may pose a question back, worried that many, many such links could proliferate, if ... these two are allowed? That's the undertow I hear from this concern of yours. I don't predict proliferation, but I don't shy from it, may even welcome it. I know the talk-show appearances aren't huge fonts of wisdom or insight -- and few if any will rival Joachim Phoenix on DLetterman (or DBarrymore, for that matter) ... as insightful moments into the actors' characters -- but I also don't think that they're irrelevant. And, if they know people are paying more attention ....?!? (Perple? ... Whole 'nother question.) Well, I'm running on again. ... Though I was trying at the end there to link back to the more-blue-sky thinking in my previous note. Well. I'll leave it here. Thanks again.

(*) Re: "promote/add" above. For me I know this's a big gray zone in all of Wiki. For the record I have nothing financial to do with the movie under discussion. ... Of course one has the feeling that much posting -- some that I myself have done in the past -- ... does not come with such a full disclaimer. ... I'm still working on my own ... posture ... on this question. ... And ..., in contemplating ... "proliferation," ... one can certainly imagine ... ... "promotion" in the next breath. Well, I have no answer for this ... added wrinkle here. Maybe it ... will relate ... to (y)our further thinking on these subjects. Swliv (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think it'll be too weird to include their talk show appearances. Have you considered working the stories they shared into the "production" section, as you suggested earlier? I think that'll be a better idea. --Artoasis (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing red links?

I found one of your edits that replaced a red link with a link to another page. I clicked on the link thinking I would reach the page about the prison, but instead reached a page with no information on the link I clicked on. I see that you have a habit of either replacing red links with links that are only slightly related, or unlinking them completely. Why are you doing this? Please read guideline pages such as Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Piped_link#Intuitiveness on this matter. Gary King (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken. Sorry. I haven't searched exhaustively just now, but I did encounter an editor a while back who was campaigning, as I recall it, for "getting the red out." It caught my fancy a bit, I'll admit. It could well have been in that March time period. The one in the Jeffrey Skilling article you highlight does strike me as indefensible. I think the thought was that at least it got a reader to the right arena to research the prison(s); also, with so many red prisons, I think I despaired of actual articles ever being written about each; but the words of encouragement in the Red link article I have taken to heart. Let us hope. I don't see any other "terrible link"s since you encountered the JSkilling one, in your history, but I'd like to hear about others of mine you disliked too, if you'd like to share them.

In the Skilling article, you led me to two elements, one related: before I figured out what you were pinpointing, I found my original link via the NYTimes to the AP Supreme Court article had gone dead, so I found a new link to it via Yahoo; and I took exception to having Skilling's spouse as a red link. The former's just FYI; the latter represents my updated (more experience, plus your critique) sense of what's appropriate. Hope you agree on it. Not black and white, but where I'd call it today, where I did call it today. As to your Piped link-Intuitiveness reference, it's interesting but I don't really get the specific relevance. Any further pointer, there?

Thanks for your attention and concern. Again, sorry. Swliv (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for understanding. I agree that a lot of this is not very concrete and it's ultimately up to the editor's discretion and personal preference when it comes to linking. I can certainly understand having fewer red links in articles; it does indeed look unappealing, but I guess that's why it also plays a big role in encouraging people to create new articles, too. Regarding WP:EASTEREGG, I just feel that the prison link to List of U.S. federal prisons doesn't help the reader better understand that particular prison. It should just remain a red link; I'm also fine with unlinking it, too, as I am certainly no expert on the notability of the subject so maybe an article can never be created for it. Gary King (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gef and Hellboy

I appreciate your input on the Hellboy Gef reference. I agree it's unlikely any other mongoose was meant, but took a cue from the popular culture guidelines: i.e. whether being mentioned in Hellboy was an important part of Gef's legacy, and whether Gef was particularly significant to Hellboy. I confess I have not read the work in question, but it sounded to me like a passing couple of words was the extent of Gef's part in the story, which to me doesn't seem like it belongs in a reference work. It's nice to talk to you, though, and I'm glad you liked my user page! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

William J. Zloch

I am dubious about the value of adding a Judgepedia link, since that project is of highly inconsistent quality, and is merely another wiki. Unlike fiction wikis which delve into unnotable character biographies and the like, there is nothing that Judgepedia has that will not eventually be incorporated into Wikipedia's articles on judges. bd2412 T 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Augustus O. Stanley

Just had a few questions regarding your recent edits to Augustus O. Stanley. First, regarding "who went by his middle name", I would note that in my perusal of sources while taking this article to GA and then FA, I saw "Augustus O.", "A. O.", "A. Owsley", and infrequently, just "Owsley". While the fact that his NYT editorial was signed "A. Owsley" may indicate his preference, I don't know that it would necessarily be conclusive. Even if it is, I think the more conventional way to indicate this might be to put his middle name in quotation marks, rather than spelling out "who went by his middle name", which seems awkward to me.

Second, you added "The effort included a hearing with no witnesses but broad-brush publicity in New York City Hall in July, 1911." I claim little familiarity with the hearings as a whole; was this meeting particularly significant to Stanley's life or the hearings as a whole? Why is it mentioned? Also, "no witnesses but broad-brush publicity" seems a little POVish. The NYT article seems to indicate that witnesses were called later, though it's unclear whether those were in NYC or Washington, D.C. I'm rather inclined to remove this addition.

Also, you added "for example, relative to the constitutional implications of search and seizure provisions in legislation in early 1922". While this is directly related to Stanley, its introduction into the article seems a little forced without some context. Would you be OK with moving the source to the Further reading section? That way, readers who were interested could get a little taste of Stanley in his own words. Alternatively, it would be good if we could maybe create a short paragraph about Stanley's overall actions regarding prohibition in the Senate to give his opposition to this one aspect some context.

Feel free to respond here, on my talk page, or perhaps most appropriately, copy this discussion to the article's talk page where other interested editors can comment as well. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Security Industry Association

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Security Industry Association, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Securities Industry Association. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat on the run yesterday, I made a first effort to respond to the above/describe what I'd been trying to do, here. Since, I'm actually having vague memories of having uncovered the same problem quite a while (year+?) ago and perhaps even having taken it to the current point but then become discouraged and left it alone. (I did quite a stint of work on the commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the regulator for the securities industry, a simple explanation which will make more sense in combination with my response linked to above.) Today, I've reread the above from CorenSearchBot and have skimmed parts of the "Help:Moving a page" article and think that it probably offers, in fact, the route to addressing successfully the problem as I've so far diagnosed it. As yesterday, when I didn't even go that far, I do not now have the time to undertake the alternative route but hope I will get back to it in the near future.

Thanks for the help to this point. Swliv (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Swliv. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The odyssey of Securities Industry Association v. Security Industry Association

Following is the latest chapter in a naming and content-quality complex of problems between these two similarly named (the former defunct, merged into Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association) trade groups' articles. I'm cross-posting it here because with deletion hanging over the now-correctly named article here my post could be lost. With links to other bits of the history included, here is my post today there:

I've been working on this article for quite a while and invested quite a bit of time in it. To summarize a little, the history of the page is the history of the page as it existed under the name, apparently from the start, of Securities Industry Association. The latter trade association was, until 2006, the organ of the securities industry, more specifically the equities (stock) market. In that year, it merged with a bond-oriented org. to form Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. I came at the article from the securities side and quickly, maybe more than once over recent years, noted and tried to correct the naming mistake. However I've never been able to just change the name due at least in part to my unfamiliarity with that Wiki process.

Anyway, in the recent history, one sees that the article, under (finally; or simultaneously to the inception of) the correct name, was in effect immediately deleted for "blatant copyright violation." I made a near-discouraged plea and the deletion was reversed and we're now just a candidate for deletion. One cannot, it seems, access the old talk page of the old Securities Industry Association page, where the course of the odyssey-to-date could be more fully tracked. Bits of it exist here, here, here, and here.

I'm not able to contribute to the article itself right now -- the discouraged/exhausted aura hovers, despite the boost from the temporary respite -- but since getting into this I've heard more about the book The Music of the Primes: Searching to Solve the Greatest Mystery in Mathematics (HarperCollins, 2004) by mathematician Marcus du Sautoy. It seems, now that I look, that neither the book or the author have made it to Wiki yet, but one Amazon customer review, quoting the book, says "'The story of the primes spreads well beyond the mathematical world' from quantum physics to computer security. With respect to computer security, 'The primes now affect all our lives as they protect the world's electronic secrets from the prying eyes of Internet hackers'" [my emphasis]. That's part of what I'd heard about the book. I think the trade org. for the security industry (which includes computer security) ought to have an article.

A couple of specifics.

• Would proper footnoting to "SIA's former website" at archive.org be sufficient, maybe with quoteblock, to "clear" the offending content and set the stage for the article to go forward organically, perhaps with advisory template(s)?
• Second, on the above-mentioned old talk page of the old Securities Industry Association page, I think it was, where discussion was proceeding about my name-change proposal, I worked out the template to refer inquiries about the Securities Industry Association to the successor SIFMA page. If that template could be retrieved, I'd appreciate it. It would of course be better than having Securities Industry Association redirect here. Maybe a reflexive template at SIFMA would be wise, too, since maintaining the distinction is difficult.

I'll rest my case with that for now. I expect I'll try at least to convert the Primes bit into a contribution to the article fairly soon. I am going to cross-post this input to my own user talk page because it looks like this page could disappear as part of one process or another going forward.

I do apologize for not immersing in all the relevant Wikipedia procedures. I know I've caused at least some inconvenience to fellow editors in the process. But I'm trying to bring what I can to the table at each step in the interests of the encyclopedia.

Thanks for past and continuing attention.

I'll add that I'm not complaining about the "odyssey," even if it sounds like it some above. ... I need to gin myself up, non-chemically, some ... to keep ... coming back ... to ... the good fight. OK? Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The talkback above is now at this Archive.
• The fight for an incremental approach appears to be over, as per here and here, though those pages may disappear in the deletion round. I don't have a rewrite in me now. I hope someone, even I, will start from scratch someday. With a little distance, this evening, I do feel I've had a hand in at least eliminating a misnamed article and clearing the way for two correctly named articles should someone choose to undertake either or both of them. Don't ask me exactly how I had a hand, but I guess I'll take solace in it and move on. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

moved your sandbox

Hey, you put your sandbox in mainspace. I moved it to User:Swliv/83rd Academy Awards sandbox. Yoenit (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas

At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Barry Zorthian

It only requires one reference at Recent deaths to confirm that the subject has died. That is not the place to establish notability or accumulate references. It only takes a few minutes to write a stub article for Barry Zorthian which both establishes notability and allows for multiple relevant links to be recorded. As things stand at the moment, Zorthian's redlink at Deaths in December 2010#30 will be deleted on 30 January, whether it has one reference or many. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My original statement, and my response to the response to it from User:WWGB above, are here. I earlier today established the BZorthian article (no longer red-linked above). Swliv (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Tahrir/Тахрир

No problem :) --Lucien leGrey (m•en•es) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tahrir

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tahrir&action=edit&redlink=1 -- looks like wiktionary deleted the entry. So... we could either create another page on wiktionary or remove the link I added, since the wiktionary page died. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... wiktionary doesn't have wikt:التحرير or wikt:تحرير either. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked at WT:ARAB to see if someone is willing to write a wiktionary entry for us. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK Child sexual abuse in New York City religious institutions

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK nomination for the above - see my remarks at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_April_9. You definitely need to reduce the length of the hook and bold the article title, but the article history is shrouded in mystery - at least, I can't work out where it came from and how old it is - and an explanation of what you've done would be useful. Please contact me if you have questions, otherwise comment below my remarks at the above DYK section. Hope this helps. --GuillaumeTell 17:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The actual 'DYK? is located at April 6th DYK? noms. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)'

The previous page (& its history) was deleted by an admin, per an author's G7 request, as shown here. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied at the DYK page linked to above by Shearonink. Hope that's sufficient but open to doing more. Swliv (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, here's how to move a page: Wikipedia:Moving a page. OCNative (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Would've saved a lot of time and trouble. Sorry and thanks. Hate to say it's not my first problem in the general area of page-moving (#Security Industry Association above, and "The odyssey ..." right below, that will give some gory details), but this one is clearer-cut I think and I understand the landscape enough, this time. Again, thanks all. Swliv (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

invite

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but, for the moment, I think not. I am impressed with your invitation within minutes of my first edits at William Rusher or Young Republicans or F. Clifton White or John Ashbrook; certainly in the wake of an intriguing revelation from today's WRusher obituary it was an interesting little cluster of updates in the "conservative" realm; and a surprising gap in Wiki, I thought. But I range widely and don't have any sense of attraction to what could seem a politically shaped initiative. I'm open to updates and will continue to consider your offer. I'll also say I've encountered you by user name somewhere not that long ago, will be interested to figure out where. Meanwhile, thanks again. Swliv (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, while attractive, your idea doesn't I don't think fit my own "next most important steps." For better or for worse I seem to sort of follow my nose through the current events of the day, along with to some degree outside non-current reading, trying not to be flighty but ... also, just, being where my head is. Sorry. I will try to keep your initiative in mind, including researching the individuals you've named; surely sounds like a worthy effort. Keep me posted if you'd like, and good luck on it. Swliv (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gralo; alpha-sort problem within category pages

I tracked down User:Gralo's way of setting up categories, in what turned into a string of "Oil fields of ..." and related category fields, because they weren't alphabetizing correctly on the category pages. The string of my edits are here, 9 June all. Gralo's tagged as a probably retired editor; the work I was fixing had been done in '07.

While the Energy policy of Belgium pair of edits, together, this and the previous edit, did correct the problem on that page, they also finally broke my accelerating ("The problem's so big and getting bigger and bigger and maybe I can just plow through and get it done") effort on the problem. And that was maybe not even a Gralo page. I'd begun branching out. Since then I've done a good deal more figuring, reviewed this Wiki help page and accepted that I did alright but that I'm not going to solve it all tonight. And I may also have overdone or misdone a couple-few edits in the string to do with the "whole word" or "word fragment" suffixes (as in "-um|Belgium]]"). For a while those had seemed like just more "stuff" that was messing with the system. I will (or anyone else may) go back and review. (Even those I took the suffix off are still better off than they were. But they can and will be brought up to the top standard, as I did with Belgium.)

In short though, it's the "|*" or "| " or "|" add-ons within the brackets (as in "-um| ]]" or "-um|*]]" or "-um|]]") that cause the problem and have to be removed, as best I've been able to figure it. Further steps to assess whether or not this is a more widespread problem will also have to come later.

Before I go, now that I've pulled this project and my thoughts on it together a little, I'll link to Category talk:Oil fields of the Middle East#Titling anomoly for anyone who wants to ponder the role of "the" in the a corner of the alphabetizing game. Fun, fun. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with at least Round 1 of this problem, and hope the above is sufficiently comprehensive for anyone curious. I haven't assiduously rechecked my edits, but I've spotchecked, done some more refining of my understanding and edits accordingly, and fixed the Middle East (alpha-) problem. Let me know if there're questions. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Round 2 picked up quickly. And I had yet to note here this Soxred93 page of Gralo's articles. I'm not "picking on" Gralo; in fact, my awe at the work s/he did means that poking around his/r pages usually leads me to interesting often-new-to-me corners of Wiki. But it's a vast realm, and if the last near-two-hours is any indication, whether by Gralo's or others' hands, the alpha-sort problem is widely and deeply distributed within the realm. For example, in no particular order, I went to Gralo pages Energy in Norway and Avoiding_Dangerous_Climate_Change; the former led to a single corrective vestige-removal, the latter to a whole cascade of them. Further, the latter led to a new "tier," as I called it, of problem, namely, how to alphabetize by subject within, for example, a group of lists of countries, as at Category:Climate change-related lists. The work I did at this last page required a bit more judgment; and one can disagree with some of the judgments I made in rebuilding this "list of lists." Though I'll note, while trying to wrap up here for the time, that since the edits involved are not on the category page itself but on the components-pages, in their category templates (double-bracketted at bottom of page), I don't know of an easy way for an editor to look at a Before/After, to see which s/he prefers. Ah, well. (The course of my edits can be traced here, 14 June.) Still remarkably arcane. Though I'm not far enough along on it to generalize my conclusions for the Help article.

I'll also add that I encourage anyone to delve into Gralo's article list to consider and contribute to fixing this problem. And please let me/us know here, so maybe eventually even a "bot" could be developed (by someone), for example. Thanks in advance. Swliv (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Round 3, 16 June: Setback First, today, I followed my own guidance, went to Gralo's list, started at the top, found a few incorrectly alpha-categorized articles, corrected them. Unfortunately, somehow I wandered into the Natural history/Flora/Climate realm from there; and did a series of six edits of which five I've now reversed. So I'm explaining the reversal here. What I HAD started to key on was ANY non-alpha-sorted articles. What I began to see, in these relatively better organized, more comprehensive (I'll say) realms, is that the unsorted articles were some sort of "other articles of interest" sub-section coming in advance of the A-B-C sections, while the alpha-sort list was, say, all the US-state-articles on the subject, alphabetized by state. I'd LIKE, now, to have the "other" articles better labelled, and will think about that problem, but for the moment I've returned I think all to the way I found them, hopefully no harm done. (Unless someone knows how to elim. the whole set of five pairs of edits and undones; they're using up storage capacity.)

While I'm back here, I have another question in this alpha-sort/categ. subject-area outstanding at User talk:PanchoS#"commons=false" and related, encountered before the above snafu. I'd characterize the question, and the proposed edit, as in the gray area between "cleaning up Gralo," loosely put, and "too far"; having gone too far most recently as described just above.

On we go. Thanks for patience. Swliv (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Security/ies Industry Association

The last full-text deleted versions of these 2 articles are: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Security Industry Association

The Security Industry Association (SIA) is a nonprofit international trade association representing electronic and physical security product manufacturers, specifiers, and service providers. SIAThe association provides education, research, technical standards and representation and defense of its members’ interests. It is the sole sponsor of the International Security Conference and Exhibitions (ISC EXPOs).

Mission and Activities

The association's activities fall into four core concentrations: government relations, research & technology, education & training, and standards.

Government Relations The association keeps members informed and engaged in policy initiatives, federal regulations, and appropriation activities impacting the electronic security industry. In addition, each year SIA hosts a Government Summit where industry executives gather to hear from the Congressional leaders, government officials, and policy experts driving federal procurement policies and regulations. At this event, SIA presents Global Security Leadership Awards to members of Congress for their support of key industry initiatives.

Education & Training The association offers education and training programs for security professionals who install and service electronic security equipment and systems. Most courses are delivered online, though some are delivered by an instructor in a traditional classroom setting. Qualified security professionals may obtain two certifications through SIA — Central Station Operator Instructor (CSOI) or Certified Security Project Manager (CSPM). The association has worked withwith NICET, a nationally recognized certification organization, to build a series of professional video certifications. The association hosts and maintains an e-learning web portal (www.SecurityLearningNetwork.com), which includes information on and links to a host of training opportunities in the security industry.

Research & Technology In addition to providing daily news feeds, the association produces two quarterly publications — Quarterly Research Update and Quarterly Technical Update. These publications address the trend issues from both a technological and business perspective. SIA also offers comprehensive international security market reports and other research vital to the growth and development of the industry and SIA’s members.

Standards SIA is an ANSI-approved Standards Development Organization. As such, it leads the development of systems integration and equipment performance standards. Standards staff also serves in an external liaison capacity, partnering with federal agencies, law enforcement, and other related associations to develop and advance standards.

External links

• http://www.siaonline.org/[2]

[[:Category:Trade associations]] {{organization-stub}}

Securities Industry Association

The Security Industry Association (SIA) is a nonprofit international trade association representing electronic and physical security product manufacturers, specifiers, and service providers. SIA provides education, research, technical standards and representation and defense of its members’ interests. SIA is the sole sponsor of the International Security Conference and Exhibitions (ISC EXPOs).

Mission and Activities

SIA activities fall into four core concentrations: government relations, research & technology, education & training, and standards.

Government Relations SIA's GR team keeps members informed and engaged in policy initiatives, federal regulations, and appropriation activities impacting the electronic security industry. In addition, each year SIA hosts a Government Summit where industry executives gather to hear from the Congressional leaders, government officials, and policy experts driving federal procurement policies and regulations. At this event, SIA presents Global Security Leadership Awards to members of Congress for their support of key industry initiatives.

Education & Training SIA offers a wide range of education and training programs for security professionals who install and service electronic security equipment and systems. Most courses are delivered online, though some are delivered by an instructor in a traditional classroom setting. Qualified security professionals may obtain two certifications through SIA — Central Station Operator Instructor (CSOI) or Certified Security Project Manager (CSPM). SIA is also very proud of the work it has done in conjunction with NICET, a nationally recognized certification organization, to build a series of professional video certifications. In support of SIA's goal to advance development and professionalism across the industry, SIA hosts and maintains an e-learning web portal (www.SecurityLearningNetwork.com), which includes information on and links to a host of training opportunities in the security industry.

Research & Technology Market and technology news, trends and information are vital to SIA members and the business and investment communities today. In addition to providing daily news feeds, SIA produces two quarterly publications — Quarterly Research Update and Quarterly Technical Update. These publications address the trend issues from both a technological and business perspective. SIA also offers comprehensive international security market reports and other research vital to the growth and development of the industry and SIA’s members.

Standards SIA is an ANSI-approved Standards Development Organization. As such, SIA leads the development of systems integration and equipment performance standards. Standards staff also serves in an external liaison capacity, partnering with federal agencies, law enforcement, and other related associations to develop and advance standards.

External links

• http://www.siaonline.org/[3]

[[:Category:Trade associations]] {{organization-stub}}

International Peace Operations Association

• Best put in an ordinary discussed-type move request to move International Peace Operations Association to International Stability Operations Association. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message at Requests for feedback

	Hello Swliv. Replies have been posted to your message at Requests for feedback. Please acknowledge the feedback and ask for additional assistance if you need it. If you do not respond to the feedback, your message and the replies thereto will be archived in a few days. Thank you!
	You can remove this notice at any time - click on this section's [edit] link and remove the section.

Talkback

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

Surkov

Hi there,

I can link you this Volkskrant page: Rijke glamourboy uit de race. To actually read the article (without pressing ctrl + scrolling to zoom in), you'll need a membership to log in. Anyway, it's in Dutch. PS. The link should be alright the way it is now, but if it's not you can go to lees de Volkskrant online and search in the top left box on "vrijdag 16 september 2011" and subsequently go to page 16-17 in the section "Buitenland". Otherwise I'll simply provide a screenshot or some sorts to prove it. Special:Contribution... 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

81...

Thanks for the "Rijke glamourboy ..." source. However, it seems like we're relying on you for (a) the access and (b) the translation. And I don't know how the screenshot would be integrated. I may put a further comment at the Surkov talk page. For now, thanks again, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonenglish sources are not uncommon on Wikipedia, are they? Russian, Chinese, Spanish, French, German sources pop up all the time, I believe. If you really want the translation, I'll see what I can do. Can you integrate the link into the actual article? I don't know how to. Thanks and cheers. Special:Contribution... 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You have me, there. That's why I was maybe going to go to the talk page. I just don't know. The access issue is becoming a little more notable, with The New York Times paywall and RMurdoch's stand on the pay issue (proponent of pay; though his ads-only MarketWatch is one of my main sources for business news and for Wiki; though I do sense MW's getting squeezed into being more of a feeder for his (mostly pay) Journal and Barrons), among others. I do believe I have seen non-English sources footnoted. If there's access then one can get at least a sense of them from Google Translate. That's why I felt I had to note we're "relying on you for (a) the access and (b) the translation". (To make my screenshot concern more specific: I don't know what the copyright issues may be, on that; plus I don't know what the mechanics of storage and access would be.)

Of course, all my access comments represent the "spoiled" position of assuming free on-line access. Citations to off-line books, for example, are of course reasonably common in Wiki, in the manner of any "old-fashioned" reference paper; and there the editor is the only one with direct, full, "immediate" access to the source. (That's why I like the link you provided, and I would integrate that link into any upgrade I made of your footnote, "blurred out" even though it is. And I think I'd include the comments "Subscription access only" and the "'Ctrl +' zoom feature".)

Re: the translation issue. First, was I correct in assuming you were the effective translator for the edit you made? (I ask since you're being good and willing to work this through with me. I wish I could send you somewhere for, or give you, a resolution. I can't do either. I'm doing all I can.) I have on occasion in a footnote delineated my role as, say, viewer or listener. I can recall instances where a source disappeared or changed and I wanted to retain mention of it, so I came close to saying just "I saw it", in effect. Your role as translator I could imagine being addressed similarly: "Translated by editor" or "Translated by editor 81..."

Which brings me to needing to repeat, in closing, my encouragement to you to establish a user name for yourself rather than staying "81...". When I (and I think other Wiki editors) are dealing with you as just an IP address, I/we have a level less confidence that there's one, real person at the other end of the dialogue. (What if you want to edit from a library machine? Or you move to a new machine yourself?) Pseudonym is fine, usually the name of the game in Wiki. Just something with cross-machine continuity and password protection, you know?

Good of you to hang in with this. I'm game to go further on it here, if you like. Not the most cogent argument, here, I know, but, again, what I can do. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the translation. I hope my English is decent enough for you to make out the most of it. I'm quite sure, though, in Dutch you put hyphens where English doesn't and vice versa. You should improve on it where you think it's possible. I have written it in Word, if you want that file, I'll see if I can send it to you. As for the account: User:Mallerd. That was my account, and I will log in on that account if I'm not using my own computer. I just felt that even with an account I was being treated horribly. With an Ip-adress you'll get that a bit less for some reason. You're a great guy though! Hope I could help!

Rich glamourboy out of the race

Oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov, the ‘new face’ of the Duma-elections of last December, has been put out of the race in a ‘Kremlincoup’. ‘Now I realize what a political monopoly means.’

By our correspondent Arnout Brouwers

Moscow Against the background of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a striking example of Soviet architecture, is Alla Pugachova walking sternly up the stairs to the conference hall. Followed by fifteen cameramen, stumbling over eachother, because the living legend Pugachova is Russia’s ultimate popdiva - a perfect mix of vulgarity and emotion.

She is not the only star present at the royal drama unfolding here. Rock musician Andrej Makarevich and actor/talkshowhost Yarmolnik are there as well. As well as fifty national delegates of Pravoye Delo, the Right(ly) Cause, the remainder of the party with which Mikhail Prokhorov wanted tob ring some life in the brewery in the Duma-elections.

All of this, of course, in accordance with the spindoctors of the Kremlin, the salutarily televised audience with president Medvedev included. Prokhorov seemed to have what was needed to stand out to the gray mass that is typical for the political arena these days. A modern image, owner of the American basketball team the New Jersey Jets, and with 46 years young enough to be Russia’s ‘most desired bachelor’ – also because of the 18 billion dollars on his bankaccount.

And the Kremlin, that writes the election scenarios for the past ten years, could use a fresh, liberal face that is seen as an alternative choice by many self-employed, liberals and professionals that are disgusted by the official party of power United Russia. For this purpose was the Right(ly) Cause, already established in 2008 with help from the Kremlin by merging three other small parties, well suited. But something went wrong. Prokhorov wasn’t following orders, was too independent and had to be recalled, apparently.

Therefore, Prokhorov, now entering the podium [I would like to remind you, Wikipedia, that this is a report of a conference], is starting a bitter attack against the man who is directing Russian politics and media and, according to some, has brought Prokhorov into politics – Vladimir Surkov, political strategist of the Kremlin.

“For the first time I realize what a political monopoly means”, says Prokhorov. “There is a puppet master in our nation, that is misinforming the Russian leaders, pressuring the media and manipulating the public opinion, and that man is Vladimir Surkov.” He subsequently shouts, under a thundering applause: “I will do anything to have him fired!”. Prokhorov announces to start his own political movement, but acknowledges that his role in the elections is over.

What happened? Prokhorov says that the presidential clique decided to get rid of him. Delegates form the provinces are pressured by governors and the night before the congress, Kremlin buffoons have secretly registered new members who were supposed to vote him away as partyleader. Somewhere else in Moscow, where the remainder of his split party [Pravoye Delo] quickly had organised a congress of its own, the story is told the other way around: Prokhorov was forced upon the Kremlin in June and the fact that he is now voted away as leader proves that the party is operating independently of the Kremlin.

In the congress hall of the Russian Academy can perhaps the real reason for Prokhorovs removal be found. People like Evgeny Roizman and Konstantin Doroshok are entering the podium. Roizman is leading a pressuregroup against drugs in Yekatarinenburg, Doroshok organised large anti-Putin demonstrations in Kaliningrad.

Far too dangerous, people must have thought at the Kremlin. These are real people, with real popularity in their cities.

Prokhorov is very naive in a press conference. He wants to tell Putin and Medvedev about what happened [to him]. But the ones that watch television can already tell that Prokhorov’s political career is over. Nothing of his charges, filmed by dozens of Russian cameras, has aired on television. Putin’s spokesman lets us know that the premier sees no need to talk with Prokhorov. Surkov will not be fired, says a source from within the Kremlin to Interfax, ‘but Prokhorov [on the other hand] is fired.’

- Special:Contribution... 22:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mm. Watch what you ask for, right? That's beautiful work though I have little idea what to do with it. More than I bargained for, though I suspected it was a possibility. I'll come back to it, try to find a way to integrate it, in the next few days. First response: Thanks! Meanwhile you'll get a "name", right? Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd pick out the citations that I found noteworthy: the part where Prokhorov says he wants Surkov fired and the part where te Kremlin says Surkov will not be fired, but Prokhorov will disappear from politics (as far as the Kremlin is concerned). The rest of the article I found not that great. Special:Contribution... 08:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) oh wait, Mallerd (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) ;)

Awright. I agree (without having read the rest) with the limited cite, which I've liked I think from the beginning. The problem is with the mechanics of the cite. I'll work on that I'm sure (if you haven't solved it) in the not-too-distant. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC) ... ;) Swliv (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)