User talk:Skol fir/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

List of English words of Yiddish origin

Well, m-w.com is a redirect to Merriam-Webster, so I didn't really remove the source. I just tried to remove that fanciful Aramaic folk etymology, but I could have acted hastily. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

However, be that as it may, you removed a key portion of the definition given in M-W having to do with the Turkish origin. Also, I have continued this discussion at the Talk Page for the article if you wish to make your case there. --Skol fir (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Karl Malden

I am in receipt of your several notes on my talk page and have also read the notes you left on the Malden talk page. While I appreciate your concern, I wish to make clear my position. I have none, as far as Malden's ethnicity goes. I am not remotely trying to "hide" his Serbian background, and if your search of my history of editing this page had been a little more assiduous, you would have found more than one example of my replacing references to his Serbian heritage that others had deleted. My edits have been entirely along the lines of correct WP style and formatting for a biographical article. I point you to WP:OPENPARA, which states that in styling the *opening paragraph* 1. In most modern-day cases this [the national identification] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. 2. Ethnicity...should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is *relevant to the subject's notability.* Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Malden's heritage was notable in that he was proud of it and spoke of it often. However, it was not relevant to his notability, which was as an actor and commercial spokesman whom tens of millions of people knew without any clue to his Serbian background. In his case, he differs from an actor such as Cary Grant, who is understandably considered a British American actor because his British heritage was part of his actor's persona, down to his accent. Most Grant aficionados likely think of Grant as British or British American, while I submit that being Serbian has little or nothing to do with Malden's fame. (Admittedly, there is argument on the Grant talk page about this, but I think it's a serviceable example in any case.)

Most importantly I want to make clear that I do not appreciate your not entirely subtle implication that I made my edits out of bigotry. I would direct you to another section of WP Guidelines you may well have overlooked, one of the fundamentals: WP:AGF. I presume you must have been unaware of this rule and were not simply flouting it. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop, I was not pointing to you personally about being a bigot. This comment was an observation about the "appearance" of bigotry when someone objects to a single mention of his Serbian origins in the introduction. Talking about introduction, who knows what kind of person-(s) wrote the section on "Opening paragraph" in Wikipedia:MOSBIO? I already told you, that I was aware of this rule, and that I thought Malden was an exception to the rule, particularly because he lived not only as an American citizen, but as a Serbian at heart. As for Cary Grant, there is even less reason to connect him with England, as his accent was a "distinctive yet not quite placeable Mid-Atlantic accent" and nothing in his biography links him to England except for his birthplace. As you pointed out, Malden made a point of letting people know of his Serbian origins, so those who knew him personally, would know that about him. If his movie fans did not realize this, it was because of his modesty in not promoting it openly.

My origins are not Serbian, as I am German-Canadian. I may understand ethnic ties better than most because of this, and because of the fact that I am 1st generation Canadian. I see the importance of making people aware of a person's ethnic origins to tell them more about a person's make-up and thinking. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of in mentioning this fact once in the opening paragraph. Whoever made up the rule that ethnic origins had to be linked to a person's notability could have been a white supremacist racist, for all I know, and no one bothered to challenge this. I do not believe the WP manuals and policies are written in stone, but need to be applied with intelligence.

In Malden's case, the only persons who, as readers, would object to having Serbian American as the description would be those who for personal reasons have a bone to pick about Serbs. I think it is silly that one should have to hide one's ethnicity because of a policy that states "ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Who says it "should not," when the person who it affects most is no longer living, and has stated himself that he would approve of being called "Serbian." To me it is a non-issue, and those who make an issue out of it, are showing a lack of tolerance. That is my opinion. As a proud German-Canadian, I have my reasons for that opinion.

Look at the articles for Peter Bogdanovich or Brad Dexter as examples. What makes them any more eligible to be called Serbian American in the opening paragraph? Should we start taking this adjective out of all the articles in Wikipedia that mention this? That would look like "ethnic cleansing" to me. In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, what part of his notability is Austrian? ...maybe being Mr Universe at age 20, when he was still in Austria (known only to a select group of Americans interested in body-building)? ...maybe the accent? Although his real notability comes only out of his movie roles after arriving in the USA, and the Governorship of CA, his opening paragraph states Austrian-American.

Having said all that, I was not the initial person to add the term "Serbian" to "American actor." When I first saw that addition, I thought it was appropriate. That's probably how Malden himself would have liked to be remembered. No one should be offended by pointing it out, unless they find it offensive for someone to say he is "Serbian American." If you read the link that I pointed out from Facebook, it says "Serbian Americans are citizens of the United States who are of Serbian ancestry. Blessed with the beauty of both cultures!" That's what it means. Whoever wrote that clause in the WP:MOS of avoiding ethnic heritage in the opening paragraph is probably not aware of this beauty, and I pity them.

--Skol fir (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in whether "Serbian" is used to describe Malden in the first paragraph. What I am interested in is keeping consistency with established Wikipedia guidelines. If you do not care for Wikipedia guidelines, there are means by which to address your concerns and seek to have those guidelines changed. But suggesting that there "might" be nefarious reasons for a guideline you don't like, that there is reason to distrust the guidelines because "who knows what kind of person made them up?" is almost certainly going to get you off on the wrong foot with the majority of Wikipedia editors who have worked long and hard to create an online encyclopedia that adheres to the most advanced encyclopedic traditions of style and format. Saying that a rule you disagree with "might" be an underhanded attempt to foment bigotry or "ethnic cleansing" is just going to anger a lot of people who simply want the best encyclopedia possible. It certainly has me. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You have overlooked one option in Wikipedia: IAR. (See Wikipedia:Understanding IAR). In particular, in this article it states:

The essence of ignorance --

Two important implications of this policy are:

You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are.

If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.

Well, that supports my contention that there is a better way to handle ethnicity. If the subject of a bio himself confirmed and welcomed being included in an ethnic group, it should be noted up front, not limited to the body of the article.

--Skol fir (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

re: My editing of French-Canadian / Quebec to Canadian

The term French-Canadian and usage of Quebec to describe a person are both incorrect when describing nationality. One does not use the term 'Oregon-American' or 'London politician'. They are simply 'American' or 'British' which are proper terms. You're flagging of my editing simply shows either your ignorance of proper grammatical etymology or pro-Quebec leanings, both of which are improper for a public-based information database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.47.19 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your ignorance of Canadian history astounds me. Canada is not the United States, Oregon is far from Quebec by geography and by history. A motion called the "Quebecois nation motion", first tabled by Prime Minister Harper, and passed by parliament on November 27, 2006, states "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." The French Canadian element in Canada has a special status in history and that status is recognized world-wide as the "French fact" in Canada. Twenty-two percent of Canadians speak French as their mother tongue (see: Quick Facts about Canada's Francophonie). The pride that French-speaking Quebeckers have for their own culture is unique, and deserves support not suppression. Your attempts to use Wikipedia as your own platform to squelch this pride, just because of your own narrow point of view goes against everything that Wikipedia is supposed to represent: tolerance, neutrality, inclusivity. --Skol fir (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not clutter this page with biased information generated by the spin doctors of the CMHR. This is a publicly funded national museum, not a private project, and its governance, contents and funding are open to legitimate public debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.137.116 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This discussion does not belong here. There is already a section for this topic at Disputes over the content of the museum galleries. --Skol fir (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Red link

Hi Skol fir! Red links are useful. Please take a look at this page: Wikipedia:Red_link. Would you please put back the links you deleted in the page Anti-Quebec sentiment? Thanks. --Popol0707 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.  Done --Skol fir (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Popol0707 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtuoso

It does seem rather silly when the use this term for people like Chang and Hahn by as you say their "fawning fans". People like Kreisler and Tchaikovsky whose music they play are never awarded these high accolades, and probably wouldn't want them anyway. I think they should call nearly every accomplished violinist a virtuoso, in which case the term would become clearly meaningless, or none of them, also as the term is meaningless. Wallie (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

good comment on Sarah Chang

• Good comment on Sarah Chang. Do you ever participate in Content Review? If not, you should try your hand at WP:FAC reviewing... If you already do, please forgive me. I've been out of action for a while. Cheers • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have not yet participated in that kind of reviewing. I'll look into it. Thanks for the encouragement, Ling.Nut. --Skol fir (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Persondata problem

Hi Skol fir, I tried to intervene in the Persondata invisible comment situation going on with anonymous IPs on several single-handed sailor articles. But, alas, I've been reverted. I don't have the time or interest to keep chasing this person around so I am going to bow out and wish you luck. All of these pages are on my watchlist so I'll see what's going on. —Diiscool (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I might have to try a different strategy to get this guy to stop. Edit warring only seems to be egging him on. This latest IP address is from Vallejo, CA, in the Bay Area. ...almost definitely the same guy every time. He seems to be the type that is itching for a fight. I dealt with these types in high school. I didn't think I would have to repeat that experience again. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Pink lady sailing.jpg

Hi! Now that the OTRS has been approved, I've transferred the photo you uploaded over to Commons, as it has a compatible license and that way can be used on all the projects that discuss Jessica Watson. I hope this is ok with you. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to oblige, Bilby! --Skol fir (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Harper's coalition

You really shouldn't be reverting when it's up for discussion on the talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologized for calling you a hypocrite, and struck out the comment. See my explanation at Talk:Stephen_Harper#Coalition_vs._Weasel_words. --Skol fir (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mister Rogers' Neighborhood

I got your note on the revert I made for Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. I believe that the edit was incorrect, as the model I believe is not the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, which would include the castle, museum, etc. The model is Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, where Mr Rogers is, Chef Brockett's Bakery, etc. Msw1002 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Msw1002, you are so right about that point. I found this description: "The Neighborhood of Make-Believe is the fictional kingdom inhabited by the hand puppet characters on the children's television program Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, produced from 1968 to 2001." This quote is from Neighborhood of Make-Believe. Therefore, the opening sequence for Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is showing a model of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, inside of which is the house where you see him enter. To go to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe you have to take an extra Trolley. (You could say this is the same Trolley that is shown in the opening frames. So, it would be the trolley to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe).

I made the correction in the article, accordingly. --Skol fir (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for verifying this. Msw1002 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Holt

Please, this link is usually accepted as that which defines league appearances. The table towards the bottom of the article is full of errors. The infobox is now erroneous. Neither match the reliable source. If you'd like to fix it according to the link I've given you, that would be great. If not, let me know and I'll fix it. Either way, it's currently wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am really confused now. I counted the number of Championship appearances this year at your website (Soccer Base) and counted 38. That means 39 + 38=77 according to your number in the infobox. That would agree with [1] which also lists the number of games played as 38. But then our table is wrong. What gives? --Skol fir (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, on my fifth look! I've just worked out that Soccerbase doesn't differentiate between league games and playoff games. Obviously cup games (e.g. League Cup, FA Cup, JPT etc) doesn't count in the infobox but should count in the summary table towards the bottom of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I like this site better: ESPN Soccernet. It shows Holt's appearances going back to previous years and I did an exact count. Last year, when Norwich was still in League One, Holt had exactly 39 appearances in League games only, as it states in the Table. There were no subs that year for Holt (he started for every game).

So, the totals in the Table will have to be Games started and entered as a sub, because there is no way to sort them out as the Table is now. That creates another issue, because the Apps label should be changed to "Games", as "Apps" usually refers only to appearances as a starter. You can deal with that issue, if you think it matters. --Skol fir (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle red star

I know, its that gadget raising the alarm, but be assured, the categories removed are redundant. Unfortunately, Hotcat does not provide proper edit summaries, so you will have to live with it until somebody adds the feature. --Erich Mayer (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. So I take it, you haven't got the foggiest about German resistance in World War II. Am I right or am I right?

You do not remove a category that is superior in a tree. You may add sub-categories, but the main one stays. As for for your sarcastic remark, I was offended by that, and only have to tell you that I know the resistance movement intimately. You certainly are one nasty editor. Maybe you should just leave and go back to your sanctuary in the History department. --Skol fir (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will do as you suggested, feeling smug because I can spell. Ever considered a spell checker? --Erich Mayer (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

@Skol: it's most probably a sock of Dodo19, well-known cross-wiki troll and sock puppeteer. He's particularly up to stalking my edits, but given that I'm quite inactive these days, the troll has been searching for trouble in other corners of Wikipedia. If he returns with the same account or under another name, feel free to report him (massive unexplained HotCat edits are a typical characteristic of his more 'constructive'less disruptive edits.) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@Miacek: As you say, Miacek, some of the edits from this suspected sockpuppet may be well-intentioned. For example his latest incarnation as Erich Mayer appears to have a fixation on the 20 July plot. His pattern here starts with a removal of a parent category -- Category:German Resistance members, and replacing that with sub-categories such as Category:Executed Widerstand members, Category:Members of July 20 plot, Category:Executed July 20 plotters, and other similar groups. The relationships of all these categories to each other are naturally defined by the branches of the tree at the parent category.

From my point of view, it makes sense to keep a general category such as Category:German Resistance members and then add sub-categories to which that same person may also belong. I did not agree with Erich Mayer in his blanket removal, without discussion, of the parent category, because there is a good reason for keeping this category. It may be the first place that some readers might spot the person. I have seen many examples of people listed in more than one category. Erich Mayer seems to be obsessed with "over-categorization," but I suspect that is only a cover for simply being able to maraud articles at will and cause unnecessary disruption and a waste of time for other editors.

I believe that Hotcat in the wrong hands (a "troll", sockpuppet or trouble-maker) is a dangerous tool, because it so quickly creates changes that are difficult to reverse without going to each individual article and restoring the original version, sometimes manually. Furthermore, the editor who abuses Hotcat probably cares not a hoot for what other editors think and totally bypasses the normal courtesy of asking for others' opinions. There may already have been discussions on these categories, at certain articles, and Hotcat should not just come in like a bulldozer and take out whatever it wants.

I noticed today some new Hotcat activity in the same group of articles by User:Lasse Anderson. Erich Mayer may have left the scene (something like Elvis leaving the building), but reappeared the next day under the guise of Lasse Anderson. I'll keep an eye on it and see if it warrants further action. Lasse Anderson has been limiting himself so far to addition of subcategories without removing others. That's fine, and I have no objections to that. However, I am watching to make sure this does not escalate into another flood of changes that arouse suspicion. --Skol fir (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Drat. I knew something felt suspicious about his edits -- but I had given him the benefit of the doubt. I should have kept an eye on him, after out discussion. Glad to know that other people noticed and dealt with his edits appropriately. Gscshoyru (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

@Skol fir - Dodo's massive categorizations are usually pointless (if not outright disruptive). Additions of such overly specific categories ([2], [3]) do not give any additional knowledge to an average reader of English wikipedia, they are more of an eyesore when navigating. Daniil Granin most definitely received numerous awards not just Verdienstorden of Federal Republic of Germany. To start categorizing all the recipients of this or that German award is not helpful at all. User:Lasse Anderson is also definitely him. I don't know, why CU gave false negative this time: perhaps Dodo was on a trip in Germany this time and was editing by using, say, Internat café. He's known to use all kinds of dirty tricks (cf. this) with the sole aim of disrupting us. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Miacek. He was pretending to be you, with a slight misspelling of your name, and then trying to Rv edits by his own alias! -- Absolutely a "dirty" trick, if not a brilliant attempt at a covert operation. Unfortunately for him, you guys are much too smart for that to pass under your noses. Think of "Sherlock Holmes" or "Inspector Poirot" -- now say "Miacek."  :-) --Skol fir (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)