User talk:Harold the Sheep/Archive 1

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Demons (Dostoyevsky novel)/Archive 1
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Demons (Dostoyevsky novel)/Archive 1, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Talk:Demons (Dostoyevsky novel). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; 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 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 was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vladimir Solovyov, Netochka Nezvanova and The Landlady. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Devils
I hope you have no personal objection to my continuing to amend Dostoyevsky's page? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean Demons, I thought you had abandoned it as you haven't touched it for a week and there was no response to my comments on the talk page. There is no personal objection, but I don't think you are improving it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nikolay Alexandrovich Speshnev has been accepted
 Nikolay Alexandrovich Speshnev, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Nikolay_Alexandrovich_Speshnev help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Versilov and Durov
Re: this edit. The source does not use the word 'prototype', opting instead for a euphemism [ ''Облик Д. сохранился в романах'' А. И. Пальма "Алексей Слободин" (под именем Рудковского), П. М. Ковалевского "Итоги жизни" (под именем Сорнева), в "Записках из Мертвого дома" и "Подростке" (в образе Версилова) Ф. М. Достоевского... ], which, to my mind, is a synonym. Or do you disagree? Otherwise, what exactly your objection could be possibly based upon? -- Evermore2 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Evermore2 I can't read Russian so I don't know what your source is saying. My objection is based on the fact that the biography and personal characteristics of Versilov seem to have virtually nothing in common with those of Durov. Have you read The Raw Youth? I realise it is not a judgement that an editor is supposed to make, but I have never come across a source in English that says that Durov is the prototype for Versilov, and from my knowledge of the character it seems an almost absurd idea. However, if your source is a good one please feel free to put it back in. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just had a look at a google translation, but the assertion the writer makes still seems doubtful to me. If it is based on evidence from Dostoevsky's notes or letters, or is a commonly held opinion among Russian scholars, then I guess it must be true. But it seems very unlikely to me that that would be the case. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The source in question is – well, 'good', yes, but on this particular occasion disappointingly vague, for the word it uses, 'облик', could be translated differently, of course, depending on context, but mostly has to do with general appearance. So, some of Durov's personal features (manner of speaking, habits, etc) might have seeped into the Versilov character. Even so, 'prototype' would be too strong a word here, anyway.... Besides, I've just visited Durov's page at the (Russian) Dostoyevsky on-line encyclopedia and found no mention of Versilov at all. While – surprise, surprise, "the fact that [the Demons'] Stepan Trofimovich bears some resemblance to Durov is undeniable," it maintains…. The article Demons (Dostoyevsky novel), of course, has Granvosky and Hertzen as (to use now the word carefully) prototypes. In a parallel development, I looked into the Russian commentaries to the Raw Youth and learned from it that Versilov's ideology is in a way close to that of Hertzen in the late 1840s. Life goes round in circles, in other words, and all roads lead to Hertzen).... As for this Durov/Versilov thing, okay, lets leave it as it now stands, sorry for bothering you. Keep the excellent work you're doing. -- Evermore2 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Templates
I have reverted most of the changes that you have made to the Dostoevsky. Based on the content of the articles that you have delinked from the templates, I have determined that they are mostly associated with the subjects and have reverted your changes. -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on what content exactly? If you read the plot summaries, for example, it is clear that the subjects of the delinked articles have pretty much zero connection to 'the Dostoevsky'. In one of your edit summaries you say the delinking is based on original research. Well, I confess that I have made a thorough study of the Dostoevsky's works over the years, but can you point me to a reliable commentator on Dostoevsky or expert on 19th century Russian literature—anywhere, in a book, a journal, or on the internet—that will confirm what you have determined from the content of these Wikipedia articles? That is, is there any evidence, other than claims made by the creators of the movies or their reviewers, that these things are genuine adaptations of Dostoevsky's novel or short story? Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding reverting "narrative criticism."
Just want to improve the section on 'Narrative Criticism.' Narrative Criticism as a term came into existence in the 1980s in biblical studies. Narrative critics recognize the importance of Aristotle's Poetics for discussion of plot and other narrative features. However, Aristotle did not coin the term "narrative criticism." That was coined in 1982 by David Rhoads. I understand if you do not want to include the history of the origin of the term, but the Wikipedia entry should not be labeled "narrative criticism." Narrative criticism is a recognized discipline among scholars that has its origins in biblical studies.Jeanninegrimm (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you read the article you will see that it is about narrative criticism in general, not about the specific area of biblical studies. Aristotle and others' narrative criticism has no relationship to a term "coined" by David Rhoads for his specific purposes. It is inappropriate to define the term according to a narrow appropriation in the opening sentence of an article about narrative criticism in general. However, since it is a real thing, it might be possible to start an article called "New Testament Narrative Criticism" or "Narrative Criticism in Biblical Studies" or something like that. But before you do any further editing, I once again suggest that you read WP:Conflict of Interest and WP:Spam. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I have been taught to make a distinction between "narrative theory" and "narrative criticism" and to link the first term as far back as Aristotle. The application of the theory, which would be criticism, is much more recent especially within the field of biblical studies. It would be really helpful if the article labeled "narrative criticism" could at least touch on the extensive and innovative use of this particular critical method in that arena. BTW, I did read the COI policy in advance. In no way do I benefit from working with Dr. Resseguie except in knowledge. I also use the work of other biblical narrative critics extensively (Powell, Culpepper, Malbon, Rhoads, to name a few favorites) but am most familiar with Resseguie's works. In addition, I find his illustrations of applying narrative critical methods to be clear and accessible for students, which is why I have attempted to make these edits. I think if you have the time to review his latest publication online at Religions you would find them helpful also. Thanks, again.Jeanninegrimm (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Harold, I'd like you to take a look at the German Wikipedia article, "Narrative Exegese," as it defines narrative criticism more narrowly as a method of biblical exegesis/criticism. They had already listed several of Dr. Resseguie's books and allowed for me to establish his latest online article as an external link. I've had several academic discussions of late and they lead me to ask if you won't consider my last (reverted) comments as valuable edits for this article. Thanks again. Jeanninegrimm (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've started a section in the article based on your comments. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Jeanninegrimm (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"At Tikhon's"
Hello! I am trying to respond to the message you left on my talk page. I'm not sure if I'm doing it right. I haven't seen a messaging system quite like this before :)

You mentioned that you'd be interested in helping me make a page for the Demons chapter "At Tikhon's" for which I tried to add a summary. I'd be happy to get that going, so let me know what I should do for it! --Xandrajane (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I answered on your talk page. Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Invocations to Patanjali
I have provided WP:RS for this. Please take to talk page, or accept that evidence is evidence, however uncomfortable it may feel: that's life. I get things wrong all the time too, we all do. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's very understanding of you, although to be honest I don't understand what you are being so understanding about. I'm happy to accept that evidence is evidence, I don't feel uncomfortable about it, and, as far as I know, I only get things wrong sometimes, not all the time. I'm not as convinced as you obviously are that this is one of those times. You link to the organisations' websites, but my point is that when Iyengar invokes or honours Patanjali, it has nothing to do with the modern concept of "yoga as exercise". Patanjali never discussed yoga in that sense, and Iyengar was completely aware of it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reply. I think we may be trying too hard with interpretations; whatever Iyengar and Jois may have meant by their invocations, there is no doubt in either case that they were indeed invoking Patanjali, nor that both their forms of yoga, derived directly from Krishnamacharya, are (archetypal) forms of yoga as exercise. Iyengar's invocation is also available on page 9 of Light on Yoga. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously my difficulty is with the second premise, not the first. I am certainly not suggesting that Iyengar doesn't invoke Patanjali. I am suggesting that "yoga as exercise" is a partial and inadequate description of what he teaches, particularly insofar as he honours and invokes the Great Sage Patanjali in his teaching. "Exercise", in the sense that most readers will understand that term, has nothing to do with Patanjali's yoga. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we had better continue on the article's talk page, not here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Love your writing about Dosto

 * Thank-you Steffan and Kate. I've watched your first two films and will certainly look at the rest. You are right, I do like them. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky
The source makes it clear that the film was inspired by Dostoyevsky's plays. Not sure what is your reasoning behind removing it. I will add inspired from from if that it what the issue is (there is a reason I added it below the list here). But there is no justification to remove it altogether. Not to mention, film adaptations/inspirations need not follow the exact plot of their sources of course. Gotitbro (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover the filmmakers make that claim. If reviews/critical analysis differ on that it can be mentioned therein but that is still no justification for removal. Gotitbro (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the source makes it clear that the film was inspired by Dostoevsky‘s plays it should be immediately dismissed: Dostoevsky didn’t write plays, he wrote novels, or in this case short stories. Yes, adaptations don’t have to follow the exact plot of their source, but in this case it is clear from your reference that the film follows absolutely nothing from the plot of Dostoevsky’s stories, has none of the characters and does not examine the same themes. It is therefore not an adaptation of Dostoevsky’s stories and has nothing to do with articles specifically about those stories.This would be obvious to you if you compared the Wikipedia articles with the descriptions in your article, or better yet read the stories themselves. Don’t bother with the plays though. Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That (play) was an error on my part (not the source), I meant the short stories. I would rather not analyze the film myself to digress with the filmmakers (WP:OR), and was merely following the sources. I am not adamant on its inclusion (you might know better) but your removal seems a bit pedantic. Gotitbro (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be pedantic, but if you were unaware that Dostoevsky is a novelist, you probably shouldn't be editing articles about his work. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an honest mistake, no need to condescending about it. Your revert here is clearly wrong, this film was a direct adaptation of Crime and Punishment as can be easily gauged from any reliable source or even its plot. Please don't just revert edits without checking anything. Gotitbro (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not even close to being a direct adaptation. Your source calls it an ‘adoption’, not an adaptation. Read the plot summary given in the Wikipedia article and compare it to any plot summary you can find of the film, and then explain to me how it is a direct adaptation. It was sound advice, not condescension. Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That same source says "based on" on the same page. The film is a loose adaptation as was mentioned in the edit, I meant direct in the sense of immediate source. Gotitbro (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * if you would read the plot summary of Crime and Punishment (I’m assuming you haven’t read the book), you will see very clearly that this film is not even close to being an adaptation. I promise you that you won’t regret it, especially if you then go and watch the film (it’s on YouTube), because, if you’re like me, you won’t be able to stop yourself from bursting into laughter. The idea that this film is based on Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment is truly hilarious. Have a look at this clip. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you reverted the (short) reference to the Magazine song 'A Song from Under the Floorboards' from the legacy section of Notes from Underground. Your edit summary doesn't make it clear, but I think you appear to be suggesting that this is a trivial reference. I did provide a high quality source to back up this inclusion, which I believe clearly shows it fits within the guidelines of WP:IPCV. Indeed, I could also point you to the review of a stage production of Notes from Underground in The Herald (Glasgow) (another high quality news outlet) which notes

"WHEN post-punk fabulist Howard Devoto distilled Dostoyevsky's nihilistic novella, Notes From Underground, into the three verse and chorus melodrama of A Song From Under The Floorboards, released as a single by Devoto's band, Magazine, in 1980, it was arguably the ultimate piece of post-modern appropriation".

I'm happy to add this Herald reference in to further support the inclusion of this link, but given the quality of the sourcing I'm struggling to see how this link falls outside the guidelines of WP:IPCV and MOS:CULTURALREFS - particularly as it shows the lasting cultural impact of Dostoyevsky into other media and forms. Many thanks Jpmaytum (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the description ultimate piece of post-modern appropriation sounds to me like a good argument to not include the song in the article. The article is about Dostoevsky's literary work Notes From Underground. Just because someone 'appropriates' an author's ideas and takes it upon themselves to re-interpret and 'distil' them into a three verse pop song (which may or may not have some actual connection to the original ideas of the author), doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article that is specifically about the literary work. It is trivia, of no real importance or value to an encyclopedic discussion of the literary work. I wasn't referring to the sources when I used the word 'trivia' in the edit summary, I was referring to the information itself. Your sources are fine for an article about the song or the artist, but for the song to be not trivia in an article about the literary work it would need to be discussed as such by reliable sources on the literary work, not merely mentioned by band reviewers in 'news outlets'. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * However you may choose to construe the appropriateness of the the source's language (and remember, the Herald review used the reference to the Magazine song as a starting point for a review of the staging of the story of Notes from Underground) you've have not made it clear about how that reference falls outside the tests of WP:IPCV and MOS:CULTURALREFS. Given that the reference meets three of the tests of WP:IPCEXAMPLES (and Dostoyevksy could never have acknowledged the reference as it was long after his death, it suggests that this reference is encyclopaedic within the rules of Wikipedia. (The acclaimed DJ, writer and broadcaster Dave Haslam said of the song's writer "Devoto was responsible for me scurrying off to a second-hand bookshop to buy Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground to add to my burgeoning collection of Penguin Modern Classic paperbacks"
 * If you want another source with less florid language, then the Financial Times also points to the signficance of the link describing the song as "a magnificent four-minute distillation of Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground" . Note this (and indeed the Herald article) talk of the song being a distillation - ie a precis - a much more direct relationship by 'inspired by' or 'drawing on'.
 * I would suggest that when a writer is inspiring creative artists a century a hundred years after their death it is an important sign of the lasting cultural significance of that writer. While I'm sure you feel, personally, that "for the song to be not trivia in an article about the literary work it would need to be discussed as such by reliable sources on the literary work", that is not what Wikipedia's guidance says as far as I can see.
 * Jpmaytum (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Sanctions for biographical articles
--Hipal (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on The Gambler
I believe you are reverting in bad faith.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Nikolay Speshnev
He's described as " a determined and forceful campaigner for the socialist cause." I think that makes him a politician. How else would you categorise him? Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He was an activist in his youth, not in any public sense, but as a kind of prototypical underground conspirator/revolutionary. Then he was sent to Siberia for ten years. When he returned he was banned from any form of political involvement for the rest of his life. 'Politician' implies some sort of professional involvement in politics, which he never had. He was all sorts of things, but not really a politician. Harold the Sheep (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"removed a ref"
Re: this edit (and edit summary), is there any particular reason why this reference was removed? BD2412 T 06:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I can see how this would be debatable, but there should be some way of saying that it was his primary activity. Cheers! BD2412  T 06:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think its necessarily accurate to say it was his primary activity, or that it alone was "his life's work". It was part of a very broad range of activities, all of which were inter-related and any one of which could be nominated as primary. I have no objection if you want to put it back in, it just seemed to me like a partial truth stated in absolute language at the very beginning of the article.
 * The sentence is a rather clumsy and partial summary of the references. Three references seems unnecessary and the last is from a book written by a devotee who is not, as far as I know, an independent expert in the field. Again, I have no objection if you want to put it back in, but the sentence should probably be rewritten as it doesn't accurately reflect the sources. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Note that this particular reference was added to the article thirteen years ago, and does not appear to have been commented on in that time (it is still listed under Adi Da, though now unused), so I would suggest that its removal should have been accompanied by an edit summary more along the lines of what you have said here. BD2412  T 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Three references is overkill for such a basic proposition, especially in the lead, so I removed the least impressive one.
 * Also worth noting: in the diff you link to, the reference is being added to an entirely different sentence to the one that is currently there. The other two references are already there, so they were also not added in support of the present sentence. It should be re-written: I'll do it later when I have time if you like. Thanks for your great efforts to improve the article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on the Libido article
Hi! Thanks for catching my error by removing content I accidentally restored on the article Libido; I was trying to remove it but accidentally restored it instead! Wikipedialuva (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I thought it might be something like that. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Anna Freud article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

- T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how this works. You should read WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. Perhaps also WP:Tendentious. Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not on the talk page ! You 're never attempt to find a generally acceptable solution ! Yours actions are partisan and biased ! Please, go read WP:PILLARS and please stop WP:GAMING ! --T0t0  Cugn0 (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychonalysis, POV, Undo & Revert
WP:BRD - it's up to the person who reverts to initiate the discussion... Read the pages before claiming it falsely.......--T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken Totocugno. If you don't want to read the page, just read the little box at the top that says This page in a nutshell: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change." Harold the Sheep (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you understand : improving an article ?
 * BRD : When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.
 * --T0t0 Cugn0 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)