User talk:Ezhiki/2009

Air Force Blue
Air Force Blue
Colour coordinates
Hex triplet	#5D8AA8
sRGBB (r, g, b)	(93, 138, 168)
HSV (h, s, v)	(204°, 45%, 66%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)	(55, 37, 234°)
Source	RAF
	B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte);

Tomb of the Unknown Rapist

Hey Ezhiki, happy new year at the start. When you get a chance, can you please take a look at this...Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist and provide some input there. Bakharev has also posted this Wikipedia:Ethnic_and_cultural_conflicts_noticeboard#Pejoratives_for_the_Soviet_War_Memorial_.28Treptower_Park.29. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you translate this?

Hey Ezhik, how would you translate the following?

за мужество и отвагу, проявленные при ликвидации незаконных вооруженных формирований в Северо-Кавказском регионе

It is wording from an ukaz, so it is somewhat highly "official" language, and because I am wanting to use the exact translation, it would help me to get it 110% correct.

Can ya help with that pls.

Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get it 110% correct, you'd better ask someone else, too. It's been a while since I had to translate this kind of legalese, so I am kind of out of practice. Anyway, here's what I can offer: "for courage and valor shown during the liquidation of the illegal armed formations in the North Caucasus region".

Regarding your other request (immediately above this one), I haven't had a chance to look into that yet (I haven't even seen Wikipedia this year until today :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's word for word with what I came up with, except I used "bravery" instead of "valour". Given the military connotations, I think that "valour" would indeed be the best word to use. I have been working on List of Heroes of the Russian Federation, still got a shitload more to put into the list, but I think ideally each of them should have an article of some kind. You think? Or not? --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should. Does someone question that? Those folks are just as notable as, say, these.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

No, not that I know of. But you know how many Russian topics are discriminated against, and there is not a whole lot of info on quite a few of these heroes (online anyway), and I would hate for any of them to be AfD'ed if they were created. I have just put into mainspace Mark Yevtyukhin, and in reading neutral scholarly reports on the battle, such as http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/caucasus/P38 (warning it is PDF file) (this Academy has a HEAP of very objective Russian publications also) and http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug01/JulAug01/bobja01.pdf, one would hate to imagine what these guys went thru on that hill. I want to nom this for DYK, can you think of a good hook for this? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...that Mark Yevtyukhin ordered for the artillery to shell his Company's position in order to prevent Chechen insurgents from breaking through?

Or suchlike.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection of 2012

In the 80 minutes or so since you unprotected, it has had 5 vandalism edits by 3 IP editors. If this keeps up (and I note you didn't deal with any of them), I shall reprotect it and take the issue to ANI for review. I must say I'm not happy by your removing the protection entirely rather than suggesting a different time period. This is a magnet for vandals and will get worse. dougweller (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection of articles is prohibited by policy (and that's especially true for "preventive protection"); that was the sole reason behind my unprotection action. Seeing the influx of activity you are referring to, I would say that using long-term semi-protection would have been a wiser course of action, but that, of course, would have been impossible to predict when I lifted the protection this morning. Rest assured, it was my intent to watch this article further, but, as you realize, one cannot watch everything full time, so others had to deal with this in the past half day. At any rate, I semi-protected this article for one month due to the reasons you laid out above. If you still disagree, feel free to bring this to ANI. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Reposted from userpage

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Article, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.246.248 (talk • contribs) (permalink)

Please note previous discussion (archived here); it's all explained there. You are not Malcolm, are you? Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

For the record.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Note, I have undone changes to Makhachkala based upon your discussions with said user previously. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible favour?

Hey Ezhik, if you have some time, i.e. if you are not too busy vandalising Kumyk-related articles, could you possibly help me with a search. As per the above, I am expanding List of Heroes of the Russian Federation, but I am having some difficulty on finding a source which is an authoritative source for exactly how many HotRF there are, and a complete listing of them. There are sights such as warheroes.ru, but this doesn't have an actual list, and it only includes "war heroes" -- heroes of the RF don't necessarily have had to fought in a war to get the title. If you could do a good search on runet I would be appreciative. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of where such a list would be available off the top of my head, but for starters, here is a list of the Decrees bestowing the status on different people (viewable, unfortunately, only in IE). The list seems to be incomplete, but it is perfect for referencing individual entries. The full text of the documents is available during holidays (for some reason, today is not considered a holiday?!? but then the site has been experiencing problems of all sorts lately anyway) and weekends. If you need anything out of that urgently, I can get it for you in about a day. I'll keep trying to find a comprehensive list for you, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's the site that I was trying to find, but having seen it again now, I remember that I have had massive problems using it in the past. I haven't yet Russified my OS, and some pages do not encode correctly making it impossible for me to use. The link you have given to me above must "time out" after a while as it didn't show anything. I will use the Kremlin document base as much as possible, and will come back to you in the event I need something, but if you do find a comprehensive list elsewhere that would be great. Oh, and is there any chance you can assess one of my latest masterpieces? I had to laugh at poor Batka - the US don't like him, the EU don't like him, even Russia don't much like him, and even the dog don't hold him in a high regard either..... :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#4

~~{{subst:User:Jerzy/tbcore|.234|new=no}}~~

Hello, Ezhiki. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the ".234" section of my talk page.
You can remove this User:Jerzy/tbnh-generated notice at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
-- 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry abt that ~~false time stamp~~! Jerzy•t 20:20, 9 & 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fixed it with the new subst'd version and correct date.
--Jerzy•t 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ezhiki. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the ".234" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ezhiki. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the ".234" section of my talk page.
You can remove this User:Jerzy/tbnh-generated notice at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

WHACK!

--Russavia ^Dialogue 07:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, first of all, since I never explicitly opted in for any fish-related activities, you are technically in violation of the Cabal Decree #2 and hence are subject to all kinds of severe and unusual punishments. I'll come back to that once I am finished with more pressing matters (vandalizing Kumyk articles comes to mind... so tempting!).

Regarding the template, I am simply overjoyed by your sincere enthusiasm to go through ~400 references (and counting) and re-format them properly. I know the only reason you have not yet started is because you like to expand the pleasure of anticipation. We all do that now and then; it's understandable. Nevertheless, per your request (as well as to add to the wonders this joyful day lit by a gaily shining sun is going to bring us), I have added two new parameters to the template (ru_url and en_url). Normally, I simply incorporate the url into the title, but after having reflected on this, having dedicated fields probably makes more sense, so here we are.

I did not, however, quite grasp what kind of presentation problem you were going to point me to. The example you provided looks just fine to me—what seems to be the problem? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are well aware that WP is a collaborative effort, and we collaborate on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS. So if one wants to discuss trout slapping, that discussion would look something like this...

Against trout slapping

Ezhiki

For trout slapping

Russavia
Malcolm (ok, I am merely basing this upon his comments on your article vandalism)

So it appears that consensus is pretty clear, although I would imagine that Malcolm would like to take to you with one of these, and I could somewhat be inclined to change my opinion inline with that.

In regards to the template, I'll come back to you shortly with some information, just need to see if I can track something down myself first. And in regards to presentation problems, I don't know what that was in regards to? Please explain. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to discuss consensus at this time, but tremble you should—I will return to the subject. Now where's that goddamn black book of mine when you need it?!

Regarding the presentation problems, what was this edit summary in reference to? The "seeing how it looks" part? Incidentally, why use all caps for the title?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:38, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

Shit sorry man, didn't see this until now. The title was in all caps because as I don't have a Russian keyboard, it was easier for me to simply copy and paste it from the Kremlin website, however, I have now changed it to lower case, and will do future titles in lower case also.

BTW, you a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean? Take a look at this, and if you are, you will totally get it. Good stuff and quite a funny parody. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, didn't like the first one, so never bothered to watch the sequel (or is it sequels by now?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:09, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

Can you comment please

Hey man, enjoyed your trip to Vegas? By the time you read this, I will be half-way thru my relaxation period in beautiful Krabi. As you know I have been be working on the Hero's list, and User:Ellol is also giving a helping hand with creation of articles, some of them stubs. In order to be able to sort these stubs, I've created a stub-type. And it's now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BHero-of-Russia-stub.7D.7D. I feel that this is self-annointed wikibureaucracy gone mad in action here, and there is disregarding of what is helpful for editors who may be editing in these areas. Can you please pipe in with whatever your opinion is when you return. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crapster; I completely missed this one. Will respond tomorrow. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:18, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought long and hard about it, and here is my backstabbing (backstubbing?) decision I settled my conscience on. Business is business.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, January 21, 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to answer here. I appreciate your response, even though I do disagree with it. Of course we wouldn't intend for stubs to be stubs forever, but isn't that true of all stub types? I can see no other way to stub sort these articles, so that people can see what "Hero of Russia" articles are still stubs, without having to do through potentially 750 articles to do it (and more as more Heroes are announced). Can you think of another to do it neatly and quickly? I'll throw it open to you. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can add a note to the {{WPRUSSIA}} assessement banner that deals with the Heroes of Russia, which would allow auto-sorting all Heroes stubs into a separate cat. We'll have to poke around to see how exactly it is done, but I know I've seen it in action before, and it seems to work just as well as a separate stub type would.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

OK, well remember the changes I suggested to the template a while ago? Perhaps we can do the whole lot at once? I'll try to dig out the list of what the changes were --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I remember, and it does make sense to do them all at once. I also remember that I almost started looking into this, but one look at {{WPBannerMeta}}'s documentation put me off. That's where that half a liter would come in handy :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

Governor General of Moscow

Hi there. Can you help with my little archaelogical dig? I was wondering if you could dig out some info about Governor General of Moscow named Hershelman (ca. 1908-1910). Was there even such title? Please reply on talk page of WP:LITH. Gracious thanks! Renata (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the thread you referred me to, this has been resolved. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like to have me look into further. (Incidentally, sorry about the late response—I've been away). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, January 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's been resolved re Governor General. Would you have anidea who was "General Fenga"? Just curious. (I hope you had a great vacation somewhere warm). Renata (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, compared to −15°F at home, pretty much any place would seem warm :) Regarding Fenga, I have no idea who that is. A did a quick search, and found no leads whatsoever. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisme

Bonjour, Hérisson, c'est encore moi.

Bon, j'écris en français, puisque vous préférez le pratiquer, au détriment du yakoute !

Si vous me lisez un peu partout, vous verrez combien je hais les administrateurs, stewards, et autres IGNARROGANTS qui polluent les divers projets Wikimedia. Aussi, ma suggestion peut sembler curieuse, à l'un d'entre eux.

J'ai dans ma « Watchlist » toutes les pages sur lesquelles je suis intervenu : 1,471 à l'heure actuelle.

Ce dont je me rends compte, c'est que je passe beaucoup de temps en « revert vandalism » sur les pages relatives aux personnages bibliques, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, Paul, James…, et que ces vandalismes sont la plupart du temps dus à des utilisateurs anonymes, des adresses IP. D'où ma suggestion : Pourquoi ne pas protéger ces pages « sensibles » avec la protection minimale : « This page is currently semi-protected, and can be edited only by established registered users. » ; ça n'enlève aucune liberté aux utilisateurs de bonne foi, ça éloignera les anonymes vandales, et ça évitera une charge de travail importante aux utilisateurs et aux ordinateurs ! (Chaque page de Saint Paul altérée, c'est 60 Ko de perdus !)

Pour avoir la liste (une première liste) de pages à protéger, vous pouvez commencer avec ceci…

Salut, Américain !

Budelberger (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ().[reply]

Hi, Budelberger! I don't know about other Wikipedias, but here, in the English edition, heavily vandalized articles can be semi-protected no problem, in full accordance with WP:SEMI. This protection can be indefinite for pages "subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy". Whether a page is subject to such condition, however, is up to the judgement of an administrator who is invested in the topic covered by the article in question. What this means is that I can't just systematically go through your list and indef-semi-protect whatever you have on it, because I am simply not comfortable doing so due to my insufficient knowledge of the topics covered and, thus, being unable to determine what level of vandalism would be normal or unusually high. On the other hand, if for any particular article in your list you happen to know an administrator who routinely edits in that area, they should be able to apply indef-semi-protect when asked, providing, of course, that their perception of the level of vandalism matches the definition in WP:SEMI. Whether you consider the said administrators to be polluters and ignoramuses, should not, in the end, affect their decision :) Hope this helps, and thanks for an opportunity to practice my French (to prevent you from dying from laughter while reading my response in French, I am responding in English as to provide you with a similar practice opportunity).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:04, January 19, 2009 (UTC)

« ignoramus » : « character in Ruggle's ‘Ignoramus’ (1615) exposing lawyers' ignorance »… says my (only) book, The Concise Oxford Dictionary… Thanks for your longue réponse, but don't you think we risquons d'être bannis de Wikipedia, for overuse of bytes ?!… You and I can't answer in one word… I hate Administrateurs. They are ugly, analphabêtes, illiterate, IGNARROGANTS. So I can't ask each of them : « Beloved Conducator, your Honneur, kneeling at Your Feet, may I beg you… ». It's not me. Wikipedia préfère le vandalisme à l'intelligence, ça ne m'étonne pas. L'intelligence, c'est ce qu'on y trouve de moins répandu.

N'existe-t-il pas un Template qui pourrait dire « Article proposé pour une protection minimale contre le vandalisme » ? Ainsi, je pourrais l'inclure rapidement dans les Talk pages (plutôt que dans l'article lui-même) des articles soumis au vandalisme répété. Ensuite, les Excellences décideront, s'ils bénéficient à ce moment précis du demi-octet de matière grise qu'Elles ont en partage.

--Budelberger (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) (

). (P.-S. : Voulez-vous que je vous donne quelques exemples de l'intelligence stupéfiante d'Administrateurs et assimilés ?… Peut-être en avez-vous vous-même une stupéfiante collection… P.-P.-S. : Votre yakoute avance-t-il ? Et pourquoi n'écrivez-vous pas en français ? j'ai tellement besoin de mourir…)[reply]

I do have a stupefying collection myself, and it, regretfully, contains a few examples of my own behavior. Regarding kneeling at their feet, that's not precisely what I had in mind. I am an admin, yet you have no problem asking me, right? I honestly don't care whether you include me with the ugly, analphabêtes, illiterate, ignarrogant bunch—we are all illiterate about something, and in a project about everything that is bound to show sooner or later, especially among admins, who are supposed to be able to deal with all kinds of fires. A bad admin is not bad because he does not know something (perhaps very important) about some topic, s/he is bad because s/he is unable to admit it to others or is actively trying to pull rank on regular editors because of his/her status. Me, like I said, I prefer to edit the topics I know something about and delegate the rest to folks who know better.

Anyway, regarding the template, I don't believe there is one. You can still drop a note on an article's talk page requesting semi-protection, though. I understand this is probably less than an ideal solution for you, but it is still better than asking around to see if there is a consenting admin available to cast a semi-prot wand :) Hopefully, the vandalism issue will be alleviated to a large degree once Flagged Revisions are implemented.

On that note, I wanted to ask you whether the vandalism to the articles on your list is corrected fairly efficiently. If it is, it may be better in the long run to avoid any kind of protection (on the off-chance that in IP makes an edit that is actually useful—even in this day and age it is still not unfathomable). If it is not, it should be fairly obvious to any person who watches the article, especially to the admins; in which case semi-prot would be justified. Call me an idealist, but I still like unprotected articles better than protected ones, even if it means more work :)

Finally, regarding French, it is not that much a matter of me not wanting to write back in this beautiful language, as it is the fact that, for various reasons, my passive French vocabulary exceeds my active vocabulary by several orders of magnitude. To add to that, my grammar is virtually non-existent—while I intuitively understand how sentences are constructed and why they are constructed one way and not the other, constructing them on my own is pure torture. Nothing a good practice can't cure, but since there is absolutely no place to use French in my life now, even if I practice, my French will deteriorate back to its current miserable condition once I stop.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

Fershampenuaz

Hi! Yes, it is only a village, but it is a center of a District also. If there is a relevant template, feel free to add. Best regards, --CopperKettle 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, we don't have a relevant template for villages of Chelyabinsk Oblast (even those which are administrative centers). With over 1,200 villages in Chelyabinsk Oblast, you can imagine such a template would be quite long, not to mention useless :) I suppose we could create a template with all of the administrative centers of all districts, but, again, I don't see much practical use in it. If you have any other ideas, though, I'm open. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:44, January 20, 2009 (UTC)

A little help please

I am working on User:Russavia/Dmitry at the moment, and am having some difficulty trying to find sources for the article. All I have found thus far is this, but it won't be enough upon which to build an article, or at least not one that I can get for DYK. Is there any chance that you can do a search also and see if you can find anything? Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have access to any other sources on this subject beyond the web, all I've been able to find was that same site (and its copy-paste variations). Looks to me it is one of those cases where it is clear that the information exists, but it is just not online. Hate when that happens, too :( I normally put such articles on a list of things to re-check in a year—it works more often than one would imagine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

I found this which seems to have been taken from "Солдат удачи" journal. We could use that you think? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found that, too, but couldn't view it because the site is apparently classified as "adult/mature content" by my employer. Huh?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

Try accessing it via http://www.limitkiller.com/ and see if it works now? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That site is a proxy avoidance site, and is killed by the filter as well :) The яndex cache link, however, seems to be unaffected, so I accessed the site through that. Seeing the actual source would be great, but in the meanwhile I don't see why referencing the joural via the link to this site shouldn't work, although copyright issues come to mind...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, January 22, 2009 (UTC)

Tell your employer from me that they suck. I am trying to find the December 2006 issue of this magazine online, and can still reference it that way (without providing the copyvio link of course). I'll see how I go. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanino, Khabarovsk Krai

Ezhiki, I've noticed that a while back you've renamed Vanino to Vanino, Khabarovsk Krai, and used the former name for what could have been called Vanino (disambiguation). Are you sure that this is the best approach - considering that the Khabarovsk Krai Vanino is the only one that is known much outside of its immediate area? While it's still (surprisingly to me) a poselok and not a city, it surely has population ten times as large as that of all Vanino villages elsewhere put together, and, due to its port, is shown on most general-purpose maps (e.g. in decent world atlases).And the Google search pulls 45,000 references to "Vanino" - maybe half of those are not to the port city but to people with the Italian surname Vanino, but how many of them are to the Vanino villages? Vmenkov (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My philosophy is to use the main title (Vanino, in this case) as disambiguation whenever no large (my personal cutoff is at 100K) or historically significant entities are involved; for consistency sake. Vanino in Khabarovsk Krai, of course, is way more important and well-known than any other Vaninos throughout Russia (which are all tiny villages, as you correctly noted), but it is still only an urban-type settlement with a population of less than 20,000 people. On the world-wide scale, it is one of thousands of similarly small places. I just didn't feel there was enough justification to make it the main article.

That said, do I care much if it is made the main article? The answer is "no". As long as all related articles are integrated and interlinked properly, it makes no difference from the maintenance or development point of view how the nodes of the dab-articles structure are aligned. I just want to ask that you give one more thought to whether this place is indeed as important as you think it is (especially to the English-speaking audience, which the English edition of Wikipedia targets), and if your answer is still "yes", I'll gladly move the articles back for you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your criteria. I just felt that Vanino, small as it is, appears in the news or on the web - in Russia or internationally - a lot more than an average town of a similar population would, mostly because of its port facilities near the end point of the B&A Railway. But I too don't have particularly strong feelings about how articles are names, as long as they can be found - so I won't mind too much if the article stays where it is untill Vanino is made a city (which, I suppose, it will be one day). Vmenkov (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska purchase assessment question

Just curious why you switched from WP:Russian history to WP:Russia....is WP:Russian history deprecated now?Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion a while ago about merging WP Russian History into WP Russia. The participants of the former project did not object to the merge, yet no one started to do anything about it either. So, when doing assessments, I switch WP Russian history to WP Russia whenever I get an opportunity to do so. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:20, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I've been making a lot of Russian America-related articles lately, or adding templates to ones I find anyway; I'll just use WP:Russia from now on (premise was Category:Russian America was a historical context not a current-Russia one, but....).Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:Russia covers not only modern Russia, but all of its history as well (going all the way back to Kievan Rus'), this should not present a problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

OK good to know in future; you may wish to go through Category:Russian America and its subcats for assessement purposes, and also please note subcat name debates, I think they're on Talk:Russian America and add your thoughts, if any; maybe if they're not there then on Talk:History of Alaska, I'm not sure just now, been lots of places since.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs

I understand not saturating with links, but 1 per line, seems like a "made-up" rule. ---Don't take me the wrong way :) --- For example, look at your user page and you have both the day of the year and the year as links , that is 2 links in 1 line. The name of the founder of the language is a good link, as is the name of the country where a location is. Also, concerning Sakha State University, aren't disambiguation pages meant as a way to help users out and make it as easy as possible. If it is known as that name it should be there on the disambiguation page. I say this because all the other disambiguation pages I have run across have all permutations, even closely spelled words. speednat (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my personal opinion, then yes, having more than one blue link per line on disambiguation pages makes all the sense. The community, however, begs to differ, as attested by the disambiguation pages guidelines. The rationale behind this approach is that disambig pages are not articles. (Articles, of course, can have as many links as needed on one line, and so can user pages like mine or yours). I am merely enforcing the guideline the community agreed upon.

Regarding the university, that, again, is covered by MOSDAB. I recommend you read through that guideline, and hopefully my stance will become much clearer to you. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or you can ask any of the fine folks at WP:DAB, many of whom are a lot more passionate about this subject than I am :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:07, January 23, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, (links), makes all the sense nowspeednat (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khiatka

That's how i remember the name anyway; in Derek Pethick's account of the Pacific NW fur trade, in either his First Voyages to the Northwest Coast (First Explorations?) or The Nootka Connection, he discusses the importance of a fur-trading entrepot on the Russo-Chinese border in the Russian Far East, which played a central role in the world fur trade with China (the biggest and most important market, apparently, as it was via Canton as well). Can't find anything on "Khiatka", maybe I've misspelled it or remembered it wrong....thought maybe you might be a person to ask....Skookum1 (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyakhta, perhaps?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:44, January 24, 2009 (UTC)

Must be...misremembered where the /kh/ was I guess - Kiakhta must have been Pethick's name, it's been a long time since I read his books; another editor here is reviewing other materials on the fur trade and maybe it's in there as well; apparently the fur market there virtually dictated world prices, or influenced them, and it's known that furs from Canada were shipped to Russia via Murmansk/St. Petersburg for sale to the Chinese that way, and some of those furs were even those collected in New Caledonia and the Columbia District, which are in today's BC and WA/OR....if I come across a copy of Pethick I'll maybe add what he says to the article, if I remember that is. I'm far from the Pacific Northwest now, so the likelihood of coming across the books is "not very" but I'll keep my eyes open; an interesting tidbit; I had the imperssion it was over by the Amur but Pethick never did say.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is definitely Kyakhta - the quinetessential point of trade contact between China and Russia, and practically the only one in the 18th and the first half of the 19th century. Rasputin has an eminently readable chapter on it in his Siberia, Siberia (translated into English and available to read on Google Books or Amazon preview). Vmenkov (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ust Nera

Do you think Ust Nera should be moved to Ust-Nera? Best regards -Nikai (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Russian "Ust" is always hyphenated. I've moved the article and combed it a little bit, too. Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, January 26, 2009 (UTC)

FYI Khabarovsk

I have created a new section inviting debate on the subject of moving Khabarovsk to Khabarovsk (city) on talk:Khabarovsk speednat (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've replied there. Also, you may want to visit WP:RM to propose a move officially (I'll, of course, still be against, but at least you'll get a chance to receive feedback from a wider audience). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, January 26, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral notice of RfC

Privet Ezhiki, Ya jel tvi goda Odessa, maya jena Khazakstani, moy sin Ukranski. Ya ochin, ohcin skochio odessu.

I am considering letting the larger community know about an RfC, with the following notice:

  ==Request for comments on articles for individual television episodes==
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline.

Would this be okay to post on these pages:

Thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ikip! Odessa rules :) I've only been there once myself, but absolutely loved it. Sure beats boring Kiev.

Anyhoo, with regards to your question, since the purpose of any RfC is to learn community's reaction to a situation/proposal/etc., it makes all the sense to bring the attention of editors interested in the subject to the discussion. Talk pages of relevant cats are fine, but, in my experience, the cat pages tend not to be watched by too many editors (it still wouldn't hurt to post there). Other logical places for such a notice would be WT:TV and WT:Television episodes. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, January 29, 2009 (UTC)

I never have liked kiev. we went back last summer. It is a parking lot. Dirty, a lot of pollution, and so many cars. It was charming from 2000-2002, now it is just ugly.

thank you so much for your opinion. Ikip (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of russia are you from? Ikip (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:37, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please clarify which pages you endorsed for Ikip's notifications at User talk:Ikip#Your posts on various talk pages? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I "endorsed" anything. Ikip asked for my opinion, and my opinion was that it made sense to post notification notices on the noticeboards of the WikiProjects which would be affected by the RfC. It also makes sense to post these notifications on talk pages of the most prominent articles which would be affected. Regarding posting it on the talk page of every episode, I think that's an overkill, but don't see much harm in it either. Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:20, February 4, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that does answer my question. Please excuse the "endorsed", it was an inaccurate word choice stemming from my desire to be concise. Thank you for your prompt response. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need anything else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ezh. Shestliva. Ikip (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some assistance here please

Hi Ezhiki, you know that I regard you as a neutral admin, and I would like some assistance from you if possible. I have updated the article List_of_most_common_surnames#Estonia with information sourced to RIA Novosti which presents that Ivanov is the most popular surname in Estonia. There appears that a group of editors (particularly Martintg) is stalking my edits, and proving to be quite troublesome, in that they are making my editing time on wikipedia to be quite difficult, this is pure harrassment. Evidence of this can be found here. User:Miacek has reverted my sourced edits here due to it not having anything to do with environment/nature. OK, I could have changed the sentence, but it is still a tedious edit to make. I have then re-added the information into the article, and changed the wording. As you can see from that revision User:Martintg has reverted it because he doesn't believe RIA Novosti is reliable. I have added the information back in and advised Martintg to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if he doubts the veracity of the information. User:Oth, which you can see here with edit summary of removing RIA Novosti's POV (although he has sourced it to the article which I found below) (I didn't assume good faith with Oth's revert originally, and I have noted that on his talk page at User_talk:Oth#List_of_most_common_surnames.) None of these editors have edited the article previously, all 3 are from Estonia, and I can find no evidence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia, or on editors talk pages that notification has been given by editors in relation to those edits, so there is unabashed stalking going on here. I am fast losing good faith with this, in particular User:Martintg. I have posted on his talk page at User_talk:Martintg#List_of_most_common_surnames advising him that I am getting pissed with his stalking of my edits, and in general just making my editing here on WP a hassle to do. As I have told him on his talk page, if he bothered to even read the source, blind freddy can see that RIA has sourced this information to Eesti Ekspress, yet they are being WP:TEDIOUS in questioning the veracity of the Russian source (which isn't a surprise, I see it all the time, and its based on their own POV). I don't speak Estonian, but I managed to find the Eesti Ekspress website, and I managed to find the article that RIA Novosti referenced. It took me all of 25 seconds. The article is here, so one can see that it took me not only 25 seconds to find the article which actually validates RIA Novosti's information, but gives a full list of the top 500 Estonian names. If I could this, then surely editors who are Estonia or speak Estonian could check this for themselves, instead of breaching WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:STALK, WP:HARRASS. Could you please give these editors, in particular Martintg due to his continuous harrassment and stalking, a Template:Digwuren enforcement warning, so that I may now go back to the article, and add more information into it without the bullshit. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Ivanov" being the most common last name in Estonia, I can very well imagine that could be true (which raises an interesting question of why it is so, since it is definitely not the most common last name in Russia; but I digress). However, I am always very skeptical of statements which are sourced to a media reference (or even a handful of media references, for that matter). I've voted to delete "Putinjugend", "phone call to Putin", and a score of other things based precisely on my belief that media references should only be used in addition to reliable academic sources, not instead of them. Media these days (even those which used to be considered reputable, and still are, by the force of inertia) are hell-bent on finding sensationalist material even among the most mundane of the news, and they all seem to have an agenda to push (market segmentation in action, I guess). Academia, at least, does not have that drive for profits the media do (although even they are, of course, prone to yielding to pressure when it comes to grant money).

Anyway, to cut long story short, if you want my support regarding the Ivanov statement, I'm afraid I can't offer it to you (unless you can find better sources, that is). As for the situation surrounding the statement (stalking, accusations, all that kind of crap), it does look ugly. In the past, I would have probably looked into all this, tabulated the actions of all sides into nice little tables, mapped them to the appropriate policies/guidelines, sprinkled with my interpretations, and presented the output as my educated opinion, but I don't do that anymore. First, it is an enormous waste of time, and second, it never seems to affect anyone or anything. The best this approach of mine ever produced was both sides politely agreeing that both sides acted inappropriately on various occasions, perhaps even agreeing on letting that particular issue go, but later this would all repeat all over again over something else. Frankly, I am sick and tired of all this bickering. I can present logical intepretations until cows come home (by now you've had a chance to see that), I can scorn the bickering parties left and right, but at the end of the day it always turns out that everyone would be better served by heading directly to ArbComm. When it's a minor misunderstanding, I can help; when it's a full-scale war, I cannot.

I realize this is not the kind of response you expected, but please try to understand why I decided not to help. In the beginning, things were fairly simple with you and them. Even though I may not have been overly enthusiastic about getting involved then, that was mostly due to various external reasons, and I did try to help when I could. Now, it seems that fires are burning in all directions, and I just can't serve as a one-man arbitration committee; that's not what I signed up to be here for (had I wanted that, I'd just run for an ArbComm seat). I do like you because even though my views of the world are more in line with Biophys' than yours, you nevertheless manage to remain neutral (as is humanly possible) when writing content. You also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard for political statements (although the creation of "eSStonia" did cast some doubts). I cannot in good conscience respect a person who would write something like "phone call to Putin" and not only present it as true encyclopedic material, but fiercly defend it when pointed out that it is, in fact, not, and completely ignore several requests for finding qualified sources. To me, that's a giveaway that the person is not here to contribute, s/he is here to advocate, and no matter how much I agree with the cause being advocated, my duty here is first and foremost to the encyclopedia.

In the end, if you want my sincere advice about how to proceed, an advice coming from a human being (rather than a human being in an admin role), it is "fuck 'em". Let them write their idiotic little pieces about whatever flashy neologisms they can find in whatever "sources" they can lay their hands on. Our readers are not complete morons; they will ignore articles where bias is so blatantly obvious. Don't feed the trolls; let them fuckers starve. When they leave due to the lack of attention (and leave they will), the cleanup can commence.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

Feck it, I had a response to you almost done when I accidentally closed Firefox, I will reply in good time. When you get a chance, can you look above at the stub thingo, there's a question for ya there. No rush. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please protect these

Ezhiki, can you please protect Template:HeroRussia1 and Template:HeroRussia2. They are being used in the Hero's list in order to keep the actual KB count on the article down as much as possible. As it is specially worded, and I believe that both of them as correct translations from the Russia, it would be best to protect them so as to protect against changes which will affect the wording on the article. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've semied them (will change to full protect if there is an incident). Incidentally, what's the point of them? If it's to save a few keystrokes, then it's probably better to be substing instead of transcluding them, or was their purpose something else?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not so much to save keystrokes, but to save on kilobytes in the actual article. What's the difference between substing and transcluding? Please explain. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you subst a template, you type {{subst:HeroRussia1}} instead of {{HeroRussia1}}. Substed templates automatically copy whatever output the template produces and save it verbatim in the article's source (so when you edit the article next time, you will see the actual text instead of the template reference). It's really easier to understand by trying it once in a sandbox, but if you are interested in technical details, see WP:SUBST.

Kilobyte-wise, you are not really saving anything, because the templates expand anyway when the wikicode is converted to HTML (in fact, you are making the page load even slower for the readers, because it takes time to substitute the templates during the conversion).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:06, January 30, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I got it. I'll keep the templates so that I can subst them. Anyway, the article itself is going to be around 500kb in size when all is said and done, so I will turn them into individual pages and subst them like this....User:Russavia/List of Heroes-All. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kings of Chaos (album)

I was trying to undo a cut and paste move of Kings of Chaos (album). --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did fine. I simply restored the redirect that was out there originally. Is there anything else that needs to be done that I'm missing? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:18, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

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

Copy of User:Noroton/opinions

Can I get a copy of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Noroton/opinions emailed to me or userfied? Spaciba in advance. Ikip (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I can't do that. I mostly have no problems emailing or userfying deleted articles, but this is a page in a user space deleted at user's request. I cannot re-publish it without explicit permission from the user, as it would be a privacy violation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, February 3, 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your response, I understand. Ikip (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyumen

Прикрутил темплет Infobox Russian city сюда Tyumen

но заблудился в английских терминах здесь: |InJurisdictionOf= Name of the entity in jurisdiction of which the city/town belongs и здесь: |AdmCtrOf= Name of the entity which the city/town is the administrative center of |SelfGovAsOf=date of which the information in the "Local Self-Government" section is current

нахожусь в легкой прострации на тему что же именно имелось ввиду?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs)

Привет! Поле InJurisdictionOf содержит название административной единицы, в административном подчинении которой находится город. Поскольку Тюмень — город краевого значения, то в поле должно содержаться Tyumen Oblast. AdmCtrOf — название федерального субъекта и/или административной единицы (единиц), административным центром которых является город. Поскольку Тюмень является административным центром Тюменской области и Тюменского района, то в поле должно быть указано следующее: Tyumen Oblast, Tyumensky District. Ну и наконец SelfGovAsOf — эта дата, на которую дана информация в полях секции "Local Self-Government" (Charter, MunStatus, LeaderType, LeaderName, Legislature). Ну что, стало немножко понятнее? :) Если нет, спрашивайте дальше, с удовольствием отвечу. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:07, February 3, 2009 (UTC)

Снова на счет Template:Infobox Russian city - неудобно, что в нем остутствуют такие общепринятые параметры как время UTC, Summer UTC, и вытота над уровнем моря. Также непонятно отсуствие строки для кода региона CodeNumber - иностранцам которые будут работать в России эта информация отнюдь небесполезна т.к. на код завязано очень многое от автомобильных знаков до названий сайтов региональных органов власти.

Для отсутвия этих строк в шаблоне есть какая то объективная причина?

Также для крупных агломераций было бы удобно указывать еще и размер урбанизации - population metro, но это уже так... вкусности...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs)

UTC и код региона отсутствуют в связи с тем, что мы стараемся не перегружать шаблоны информацией, которая по сути относится к чему-то другому. И время, и код региона можно найти в статье о собственно регионе. Высота над уровнем моря отсутствует ввиду отсутствия надёжного источника, из которого её можно определить (для любого российского города можно найти, наверное, с десяток различных данных по высоте). В крайнем случае, желающие найти эти данные могут проследовать по координатам и воспользоваться одним из картографических сервисов, которые эти данные предоставляют. То же самое касается и population metro — для большинства российских городов нет не только собственно этих данных, но и данных о том, что именно входит в это "metro". Для тех немногих городов, у которых эти данные имеются (и можно указать источник), их можно поместить в тексте статьи.

Также хочу попросить вас оставлять сообщения на User talk:Ezhiki, а не на страничке с критикой (она, вообще, предназначена для других целей, да и собственно сообщение ваше я увижу с задержкой в виду отсутствия жёлтой полоски). Спасибо!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, February 4, 2009 (UTC)

В описании к инфобоксам городов написано, что они генерируют координаты вызовом функции coord.

Вопрос - значит ли это, что для индексации страниц в базе wikiloc для google и пр геосервисов на страницах с инфобокс наличие отдельного вызова данной функции не требуется? Т.е. следует ли при дополнении существующих статей удалять отдельный вызов этой функции при добавлении инфобокса для населенного пункта или лучше не трогать? Если не трогать, то образуются дупы геокординат, которые накладыватся друг на друга делаясь нечитаемыми... Tobolsk—Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs)

Да, если есть инфобокс, то отдельный шаблон с координатами можно убрать. При индексации страниц координаты берутся из HTML-кода, так что как именно координаты туда попадают (через {{coord}} или через инфобокс) совершенно неважно.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

User page redirects

Можно ли сделать редирект на одну и ту же страницу пользователя для всех языковых версий википедии?

Завел страницу а по переключении на любой новый язык движок заявляет что ее "еще не существует"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs)

Нет, к сожалению так сделать нельзя. Можно добавить интервики, или можно просто написать текстом, что вы на этой странице появляетесь редко, и добраться до вас можно через другой языковой раздел.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Sondra Locke

В процессе работы над этой статьёй в ру-вики столкнулся с неприятным фактом; на сайте peoples.ru есть такая статья о о ней, но она представляет из себя чистейший перевод из англо-вики статьи Sondra Locke. При этом скромно указывается имя автора - Алексей Булатов и никаких ссылок на ен-вики. Полагаю, что необходимо связаться с администрацией сайта и указать на нарушение условий лицензии GNU FDL и потребовать убрать авторство указанного лица, оставить, если только в качестве переводчика. Кстати, по истории правок видно, что в ен-вики статья появилась намного раньше, чем на том сайте.--Torin (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! Перевод, однако, довольно-таки дрянной, хотя видно, что слямзили его у нас. Только я не очень понял чего вы ожидаете от меня? Стандартная форма письма находится тут (есть и русская версия, надо только по тексту заменить ru_wiki на en_wiki); посылать его у вас ровно столько же прав, сколько и у меня :) Подписать его я, разумеется, могу, но поскольку статью эту я никогда не редактировал, то лучше бы попросить его подписать одного или несколько авторов. В общем, дайте знать, как именно я лично могу помочь.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, February 4, 2009 (UTC)

Наверное лучше обратиться к авторам этой статьи, а я могу им помочь загнать в русский вариант необходимые ссылки и подписаться сам, как автор русской версии статьи.--Torin (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS/ А в общем написал им через форму отправки новостей, никаких адресов для связи я там не нашёл.--Torin (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

На главной странице есть e-mail главного редактора (Александр Каргин, alexSOBAKApeoples.ru).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Состоялась у меня переписка с главредом. Несмотря на то, что я ему изначально дал ссылки в ен-вики на статью, всё требовал ссылок. Сегодня отправил ему очередное письмо, котором привёл ссылки на саму статью, на её версию от 16 октября 2008 года, а также ссылку на страницу истории. Посмотрим, как дальше будет всё развиваться. Тут ещё дело в том, что на этом сайте труд авторов оплачивается и они томе деятелю, который передрал статью из ен-вики уже оплатили работу.--Torin (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Oparin

Bakharev has mentioned some info at Talk:List_of_Heroes_of_the_Russian_Federation#Oparin on Oparin. Perhaps you can discuss with us how to disambig the names. But also, could you check consultant.ru (still having troubles with it) and see if Oparin is listed amongst any of the ukaz there, because I can't find any reference to him. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

List of the massive headache

List of Heroes of the Russian Federation, I did an update, only to see all my refs were gone and it was placed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. ****!. OK, never fear, I then went thru and created and updated pages for subst on the article. So now the entire list is subst from other articles, but guess what? Still no refs and still in the same category. ****! And I'm only (by the looks of it) ¾ done. ****! What am I supposed to do? How to do this list, coz I do want it to be WP:FL when all is said and done. Help me! What to do? ****! Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. $100 to the first person who can guess what ****! means :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked into the problem yet, but am still posting this (while the page in question is still loading in another window) because I hope to be the first to get those $100 (Australian, I presume? Oh well, still works). Judging by the context and the hint of slight frustration in your voice, I'd say it means "holy Mary and mother of all gods help me or be damned to hell where you belong"? Am I right or am I right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:29, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My second guess is "please".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

You are correct!! With your first guess. Now 100 of these dollars will be on their way to you, the moment you remit 5 of these dollars to cover postage and handling costs. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have any Australian dollars in my possession, but if you could please invest the Zimbabwe dollars into some safe investment tool, I'll claim them (plus the interest) the moment I do the exchange. At that time, let's continue this transaction with the help of my highly reputable financial partners in Nigeria, shall we?

Regarding the list, your most recent edit actually made things worse (there more often you translude and re-translude, the more the post-expand size grows). Interestingly enough, the revision just before that edit crapped out right on the {{reflist}} template, and if that is replaced with the less fancy <references /> tag, 500 out of 507 cites re-appear (a nice example of how many post-expand bytes re-transclusion eats up). Not that it helps, since the list is still unfinished and will grow further.

The problem, as you have probably already guessed, is an abundance of the {{cite web}} templates. I can't think of a definite solution off the top of my head, but, after having conducting a quick experiment, I can say that reformatting the references using {{cite Russian law}} instead of {{cite web}} should alleviate the problem quite a bit. The post-expand size of the {{cite Russian law}} template is, on average, around 1.5K, while {{cite web}} eats up over 3K (it is that much higher because of all the parameters which you did not use, but which are available and count against the post-expand limits). Since you were going to do this job anyway, now is a great time to get cracking, because you can't really do anything else anyway! I'll keep trying to think of some more marvelous ideas to ~~keep you occupied~~ resolve this minor technical mishap.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, a safe investment tool? How about subprime mortgages? Never will you find such a secure investment! Investment advice valid at July 2008.

On the list, I want to change them to cite Russian law, but without the name of the actual Ukaz, I don't know how I could do that. I have a lot of the text from warheroes.ru, and in some cases the Ukaz number, but not the Ukaz title, which is needed for the cite russian law template. Thats the quagmire I am in somewhat. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the list I sent you not helpful? I realize that some of those heroes were processed in bulk (so their name would not be mentioned in the title), but there should still be a fair number of folks who received their awards individually? Plus, if you already have the decree number from the warheroes site, you can cross-match it with the list I sent to you to get the decree's title, can you not?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:52, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the list you sent me was helpful for a couple, thanks. But take for example, the 20-odd who were awarded in Ukaz no. 484 on 12 March 2000, Mark Yevtyukhin being one of them, I can't find this particular ukaz anywhere online. I may have to do some investigation and see what offline sources may have such information, like the National Library or something, and suck up to someone to go and get the info for me :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a partial copy of it, but, of course, this is hardly from a reliable source. I will check this with my other sources along with Oparin (and will take a raincheck for sucking up if I am successful).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:12, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Zvyozdny Gorodok

Formally Zvyozdny Gorodok is not any ZATO (it is administratively included in Shcholkovo city). The same with Vlasikha - formally Odintsovo part. It is a large set of military bases with closed settlements - but why Zvyozdny Gorodok&Vlasikha are listed separately?Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the sources I provided? They formally became ZATOs on January 19, 2009.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is available online, but I copypasted the entire decree (without the appendix, which is basically just a description of the borders) to this page, to save you time looking for it. The one for Zvyozdny gorodok reads pretty much along the same lines. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are Vlasikha[1] and Zvyozdny[2] on-line. On the President site. It will take two years to complete the process ZATO creation. Thanx, Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will take two years to complete/amend the appropriate legislative acts and to start re-organizational processes (and possibly establish some commissions and committees overseeing the transformation ;)). As for the status itself, it is effective 1/19/9—item 1 orders the transformation, and item 5 clarifies that it is effective upon signing. If the change of status were to take effect two years from now, there would have been a clause saying something like "считать ЗАТО образованным с такой-то даты".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:32, February 5, 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Hello, Ezhiki. I report you about this mistake, because the report page of your bot's closed. I think it's before my correcting in word "niger". --Cuba77 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! Бот действительно сработал на это слово, но следующую вашу правку не поймал. Хочу отметить, что цитаты Задорнова переведены просто отвратительно. Я бы их починил, но не хочу этого делать не видя оригинал. Например, в данной конкретной цитате Задорнов сказал "ниггеры" или "негры"? Две, как говорится, большие разницы, и перевод, соответственно, тоже будет разным...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, February 9, 2009 (UTC)

Привет, Ёжики, ещё раз, и спасибо что по-русски. :) Постараюсь помочь с поиском оригиналов цитат (займусь на следующих выходных). Я, правда, не мастер литературного перевода, поэтому можно, если что, за ним обратиться к вам? Когда, конечно, цитаты будут. --Cuba77 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Вы мне найдите три-пять самых ярких цитат, а перевод я вам обеспечу :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:02, February 9, 2009 (UTC)

KBR

Wow! It is certainly a lousy piece of crap! I will see what I can do, even though my schedule has been tight as of late. American Imperialist (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, I just wanted to bring attention of an interested person to it :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, February 10, 2009 (UTC)

Galenki

Home to a regiment of the 11th Air Army. Would you mind creating one of your appropriate pages for it? Buckshot06(prof) 10:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have enough information to write decent stubs on thousands of places in Russia, yet you have a knack of requesting those for which I have nothing more than location and jurisdiction :) I'll see what I can find, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:02, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Finding an appropriate cite might take me a little while - leave it with me. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 16:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

OK, time for you......

to do something useful around this place. As it has to do with your part of the world, this should give you some impetus to get off ya bee-hind and start adding something. We have a few days to do this in, WP:DYK and all that you know, so you also need to get cracking. What am I talking about? APEC Russia 2012. Chop-chop ya lazy sod, let's do this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah rats, I knew this would come up sooner or later. Oh well, but let me ask you something first—HAS 2012 ARRIVED ALREADY??!! Did I hibernate too long this time? What's the #@!#$ rush??!! 'K, having gotten that out of the way, I might actually have something that could be useful. As ever, no promises (I am on a tight schedule at work, although you wouldn't guess it if you look at my activity history... which only complicates matters).

DYK-wise, I think it is important to find out whether the summit is scheduled to happen before or after the end of the world. That'd be a great hook, don't you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:12, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight you knew it was coming. DYK-wise, it's perfect! Write it, publish it, nominate it. But look, whenever you get around to it is fine by me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've dumped the overall timeline of the events into the article (I must say, having come from the area, what they are planning to do seems sometimes entirely surreal to me—a theater on a floating island? an floating atomic station? frigging bridges which were in planning since the 1950s?.. I think I would have laughed with Gref back in 2006... I still might in 2013); hopefully this would count more than enough towards my usefulness allotment for this calendar year. If you feel like copyediting it, perhaps adding sources other than Regnum, finding some DYK hooks, that'd be great. If not, I might actually return to this article some time before 2038. Only time will tell...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Haha, man, I was f'ing around I hope you know. But good stuff, I'll incorporate what else I have written in with what you have expanded on. It's funny though, I saw an edit on the DYK page which caught my attention, and I thought this is hilarious, if Ezhiki doesn't do something, perhaps we could turn him into one of these. How disappointed was I when I read the article though :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pie, I guess I was lucky the article was about something else... Regarding the summit, however, it actually was on my to-do list, although I wasn't going to do anything about it for at least two more years. Then you show up... grrrrr...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. How are those Russian law refs going?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Damned lucky you were. I have added, edited, etc the article, and have put it up for DYK, with you as author as well of course. And hey, stop bitching blah blah blah, all I am doing is putting a halt to your procrastination, because no doubt in two years time you would be coming up with an excuse like "I'm tagging articles", or "I'm busy at work" (yeah yeah yeah), or some other inane excuse. I know that if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit instead, but me boy, I wrote that ideology. As to the law refs, arrgghhh, I will have to do more work on them too in the coming days, at least get them converted, and then look at getting the page to display properly. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pie is simply not nice.

Procrastination-wise, you know, if I am going to jump at every "opportunity" you so helpfully provide me with on my talk page, I just might wind up having no work to be busy with. That, of course, might lead to some other inane excuses; like "I couldn't do it because I was standing in line for food stamps all day", or "I had to update my resumé for the promising sack job that turned up".

Regarding the DYK, feel free not to co-list me. All I did was translating a few pieces of news, and when it comes to counting DYKs, I prefer the "clean count" (i.e., only those where I am the only, or at least a very major, contributor). (With that brilliant attitude I already have one DYK under my belt and am sure to land another one in the next several years, but hey, who's counting? :)).

And oh, good luck with those refs. Feel free to let me know if you need any help; I'll be happy to come up with another excuse of why I am not the person to be contacted about such matters :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, February 12, 2009 (UTC)

I promise, I swear to my Almighty God, that I am not in the Portland School system. Although the insertion into an appropriate article, may be more than just pure coincedence. The second excuse may be ok, but I can tell you now, if you ever try pulling the first one, I don't care if you are standing in line all day for food stamps, in this day and age of laptops and mobile internet connections, standing in line all day will actually give you time to do something around here. So standing all day in line for food stamps actually sounds like a win-win, and an achievable goal. I'll probably do the refs over the weekend at work in between dealing with "pains in the arse", otherwise known as customers. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Korobeiniki

Per your request, I added a note at Talk:Korobeiniki. However, I'm frustrated at your request that I run every deletion past a talk page, especially when I quoted policy in my edit summary. Isn't being bold, especially the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle a vital part of Wikipedia? I'm not trying to be a dick here, just saying. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Korobeiniki. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:55, February 12, 2009 (UTC)

Привет от Андрей!

Привет! Для того, чтобы совместить приятное с полезным, пришлось перейти из РуВики в АнглоВики. Не мог бы ты мне немного помочь?--AndreyA (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Смотря с чем :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:33, February 13, 2009 (UTC)

Some books I've found

Hey Zvukovoy, I founds some books, and have uploaded them to Commons, and was wondering if you might know of online sources where one can find other things such as these, well on any topic, that may be suitable for us, so that I can upload them to Commons. Some of the titles include:

File:Русская военная сила - Томъ I.djvu and File:Русская военная сила - Томъ 2.djvu, a 2-volume, 1000 page series written in 1892 on the military of Russia going back to the Rus' days up to late-1800s
File:Краткий pyccко-немецкий военный разговорник.djvu, a phrasebook from 1941 given out to Soviet commanders, etc teaching them military commands in German and how to say them in German using Cyrillic phonetics
File:Техническое описание самолета У-2 с мотором М-11. 1937.djvu, a book from 1937 on the Polikarpov Po-2
File:Семенов, Владимир - Бой при Цусиме (СПб., 1910).djvu, a book from 1910 on the Battle of Tsushima
File:XV Парижская авиауионная выставка.djvu, a book from 1938 on the technology which was presented at the Paris Air Show in 1936
File:Авиационные моторы военно-воздушных сил иностранных государств.djvu, a book from 1939 with descriptions of "western" aircraft engine technology.

I've some more to upload also, but was hoping you may know of other sources where I can download these such old books from? --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's up with the weird names you keep calling me?

As for the books, no, I can't help with the sites—I don't really know any. I'll be sure let you know if I happen to stumble upon any. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Zvukovoy, don't look so blue because I have a weird name for you. I've got more, it's just a shame I had to explain this one to you. No prob with the books, keep it in mind if you come across any sites. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, had I ever been interested in video games, the name might have rung a bell, but since I am no longer twelve... sorry :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Saori Hayami

Можно восстановить? Я хотел бы утащить к себе в личное пространство для доработки. Alex Spade (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Пожалуйста: User:Alex Spade/Saori Hayami.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:59, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

Спасибо. Alex Spade (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow collage

On Moscow I have done up a collage, similar to that on London and New York City, but it is a little small. Not knowing how to edit the templates properly, could you possibly play around with this and see if the image in the infobox can be made a little bigger for viewing? And I'll do something with Saint Petersburg also. Cheers Sonic, --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Alex has already increased the image size from 190px to 250px; I've just made 250px the default (the infobox is only used in two articles anyway). Not so sure if 250px is not going to be too much for folks with smaller screens, though (190px was too wide on some mobile devices already, but I guess since it was a problem anyway, the situation did not get any worse, plus the same problem exists for pretty much any other city/division infobox, and not just for Russia). Anyhoo, let me know if you need anything else tweaked. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, February 17, 2009 (UTC)

Saransk

Hi. Can you provide the article with an infobox? --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, February 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect wikilink

Dear Ezhiki,

There is again a strange link on the left panel of my user page (ગુજરાતી).

Could you please check it?

Thanks, --Réginald (To reply) 12:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone incorrectly added an interwiki link to {{User de-2}} instead of placing it on the documentation page, which lead to that interwiki link showing on userpages of all users who have {{User de-2}} displayed. I have corrected this. If it weren't for you, this oversight might have gone unnoticed for who knows how long, so thanks! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, February 20, 2009 (UTC)

Fort Stikine FYI

Hi; thought you might be interested in Fort Stikine, though probably you've seen my notes on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia.Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that note. That's a pretty decent article you wrote! While I was indeed interested in reading it, the whole subject of Russian America is not really my forté (as you may remember, I had trouble finding refs on its actual administrative status, and administrative divisions is something I specialize in around here!). I can't really see what I can help with there.

Regarding the ship, you might want to add a link to Oryol (disambiguation)—you'll see that dab already has two ships named "Oryol", so this one will be in good company :) Spelling-wise, I'd recommend "Oryol", although "Orel" is by no means incorrect (the difference has to do with how the Russian letter ё is treated, both in Russian and in romanization; in Wikipedia, we normally romanize it at its face value, i.e. ё→yo). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

replies on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, thought you might find this interesting...note the bit about Tsar Nicholas distrusting officers of the Pacific fleet because of their acquired liberal leanings from being around too many British....makes me wonder how that plays into the history of Russian America....you've seen Grinev's book in GoogleBooks, yes? I must have sent you that link previously...there's also a book I saw in the library at SFU, but never relocated, discussing ongoing Russian presence/activity on and off the North Pacific Coast....a "hidden history" in terms of how US and Canadian historians write up "their" continent......Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the book, but have not read it yet (glancing through it, it does not have the answers to our questions, although it has a lot of other interesting stuff). I was hoping to locate other books, perhaps less interesting content-wise, but more "technical" as far as the actual status etc. are concerned.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

Помоги мне с шаблоном

Есть статья VR Group#Sestroretsk spur line. Напиши шаблоноведам, мне нужен параметр свернуть. Я написал hide=1, не помогло.--Andrey! 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я добавил параметр collapse (принимает значения yes/no). Чего сам не сделал?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 06:33, February 22, 2009 (UTC)

Я не умел. Теперь знаю, где почитать.--Andrey! 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for APEC Russia 2012

On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article APEC Russia 2012, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian American romanizations etc.

Would you mind looking at Russian-American_Company#Governors_of_the_Russian_American_Company and confirming those romanizations? I came acrossm mention of Christiakov (by that spelling) in a couple of places, don't know enough to write him up though. I'm wondering if some of the redlinks may already have articles that I'm unaware of, i.e. in another spelling or name-form. In the course of this, it turns out that the title is dual; Governor of Russian America is synonymous with "Chief Manager" of the Russian-American Company, at least insofar as its operations in Russian America were concerned; who the BoD/BoG were at teh same time is not generally given (AFAIK the Tsar was also on the board, or was a shareholder anyway). I'm thinking pretty much I should spilt this list section off to List of governors of Russian America or List of Chief Managers of the Russian-American Company...tantamount to the same thing, and the same paycheque/desk....maybe, that is, I'm still wondering if there's a further distinction....this falls again into that question of was this a colony, district, guberniya or what....I think as in the case of the Columbia Department it's a bit of a special case, except that in Russian law, Russian America was under Russian title, which due to the Anglo-American Covnention of 1818 was not the case in the Columbia District/Department....Skookum1 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW an example is Ivan Vasiliyevich Furugelm, where the redirect (or rather, the pipe) is to the Swedish-form Johan Hampus Furuhjelm; I'm unclear whether in the Russian America list I should bypass the redirect, or - ?? Whether there was a Finnish form I'm also unclear on....Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to the club; you've just discovered how much of a pain in the butt romanization of Russian names can be :) I can most certainly list the variants of the names as the default WP:RUS would produce, but I'm afraid that's not going to solve your problems. Truth is, Russian can be romanized in many different ways. Sometimes the names get distorted in the process; sometimes they are "translated" (e.g., "Aleksandr" would become "Alexander"), sometimes they get to English via some other language, and sometimes a combination of changes occurs. This is precisely why WP:RUS pretty much recommends to look at each and every case individually. Sometimes even for people deeply knowledgeable about the topic (and in this case I am most certainly not one of those people) choosing the best variant to use as a title becomes an excersise in futility. Luckily, WP:RUS still works for such cases—we use it as a default, which can be changed later when real experts (or at least people who have time and interest to research the issue properly) surface. So, with that in mind, here is a copy of the list romanized in accordance with default WP:RUS (I couldn't find any articles about the people who are presently redlinked):

Alexander Andreyevich Baranov
Leonty Andrianovich Gagemeyster
Semyon Ivanovich Yanovsky
Matvey Ivanovich Muravyov
Pyotr Igorevich Chistyakov
Ferdinand Petrovich Vrangel
Ivan Antonovich Kupreyanov
Adolf Karlovich Etolin
Mikhail Dmitriyevich Tebenkov
Nikolay Yakovlevich Rozenberg
Alexander Ilyich Rudakov
Stepan Vasilyevich Voyevodsky
Ivan Vasilyevich Furugelm
Dmitry Petrovich Maksutov

Note that "Alexander" we usually translate—it's not in WP:RUS, but is nevertheless pretty common and uncontroversial. A WP:RUS romanization would be "Alexandr".

Regarding the names used in the actual list, I think it would be safe to drop the pipes and simply use whatever title the article is listed under. I just don't see a compelling reason to pipe/redirect—if there is a better variant to be used for any given person in the list (and there is for most of them), the article can be renamed later and all its backlinks can be rectified at the same time. All in all, you'll notice that in the area of human names WP:RUS is violated more often than it's complied with (if only I had time to work on this!).

As for Russian America itself, I placed requests for books on the subject; hopefully something will surface. Like I said before, the only thing I can say with 100% certainty is that Russian America was never a guberniya. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:33, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

Province of Bolzano/Bozen

Hello Ezhiki. Long ago it was decided to include in the title both the Italian name and the German one, similarily to what happened to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (the region including the province). What we were discussing about was simply the hyphen/slash issue. I think it is the time to make a broad discussion about the title of the article about the Province of Bolzano. Would you like to start it or to participate actively? Obviously, if the outcome of the discussion will be again something including both "Bolzano" and "Bozen" (as I believe it will happen), we should use the slash instead the hyphen as they are simply the same thing in different languages. Differently we should probably discuss also about the article about the region. --Checco (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Checco! I wouldn't be the one to start such a discussion, but I'd gladly participate if one were to be started—the very least I could do is to share WP:RUSSIA's experience, as the problems we faced (and solved) were very much like the one with the Province of Bolzano. If you start it, feel free to drop me a note; I'll be there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we had a long discussion long time ago (Italians against Germans) and we found the "Bolzano-Bozen" compromise with much difficulty. I don't know if I really want to start such a discussion all over again and that's why I asked both you and PManderson to do it. I will think about it anyway and if I decide to start the discussion again I will tell you. But why, in the meantime, do you oppose the "slash" correction? --Checco (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation; I was not aware of previous discussions when I submitted my opinion (which is not surprising considering I stumbled upon this one purely by chance). At any rate, the consensus reached violates the basic naming practices used throughout Wikipedia, which is exactly why I don't believe it's any good (although I very well understand why people would be willing to settle on it after having a long and exasperating debate).

Regarding my opposition to the use of the slash character, it is pretty much for the same reasons Supparluca used. There is nothing wrong with using a slash in titles such as Live/Dead (it's a part of the album name) or Biel/Bienne (that's the official name), but "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" is just an artificial construct, a product of "consensus". That's another indication that this consensus is no good—a consensus, whatever it is, should not ignore the existing guidelines just for the sake of consensus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with and I have nothing against the "Province of Bolzano" option, also because in most English geographic atlases the province is called simply "Bolzano" and that is obviously the name which appears in the Italian Constitution. Anyway, don't you think that the slash is more correct that the hyphen? First we should fix this and maybe later re-discuss the whole issue. Why din't you support that small, technical and uncontroversial move in the meanwhile? --Checco (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slash may be more correct than hyphen when one needs to cram two names into one title, but my opposition was based strictly on MOS ("special characters—such as the slash... are avoided"). In other words, when a consensus settles on something that does not conform with the MOS, the consensus needs to be revised. Is hyphen usage in this situation bad? You betcha. Should it be changed to slash? Absolutely not. Hence my vote.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen is bad because it is not consistent with similar cases, notably Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Biel/Bienne. --Checco (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, the slash character "Biel/Bienne" is the part of the official name (so it's OK there), and the slash character in "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" is a bad precedent on par with what "Bolzano/Bozen" will be if it is moved. If a slash is not a part of the name, it should not be used, it's as simple as that. That the hyphen is a bad choice is without question, but so is the choice of the slash. The source of these bad choices is the bad decision to use double names in the title. What this means is that the consensus reached is unacceptable because it is contrary to the established naming guidelines. That is my position; I don't know how to explain it any better. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:02, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

I understand and respect your opinion, but as the official name of the province is Provincia autonoma di Bolzano/Autonome Provinz Bozen, I don't see how the slash solution is bad. It is consistent with the official name, similar cases and all the articles on Italian provinces (the format is "Province of XXXXX"). Take care, --Checco (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the naming conventions for Italian provinces called for using the official names, then I would not have had a problem with the title being "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano/Autonome Provinz Bozen". But since this is obviously not the case, the title is not the official name, but something else. When that "something else" is agreed upon, one must make sure that the existing naming guidelines (i.e., "no slashes in titles") are honored. I don't see that happening with "Province of Bolzano/Bozen" or with "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". If the title is to be in English, then folks might as well decide which variant is, so to speak, "more English". I hope this clarifies my point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

Aliya Yussupova

Некий деятель из Словении с динамических IP вставляет в эту статью утверждение о том, что Алия Юсупова по национальности татарка. На самом деле она казашка, и подтверждением этотг может служить интервью, к котором она заявляет, что знает казахский и русский языки.

Два: казахский и русский. Немного говорю по-английски и уже начинаю понимать итальянский язык, потому что часто бываю в этой стране. Каждый год мы ездим в Италию по четыре раза и проводим там по неделе. Местный язык достаточно легкий, его быстро запоминаешь. Я уже понимаю большинство итальянских слов и даже могу что-то сказать. Наверное, если приеду в Италию на месяц, то совсем его выучу.

Просьба присмотреть за статьёй. --Torin (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я добавлю интервью в качестве источника, подтверждающего, что она казашка. Спасибо.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

Взаимно спасибо! ;о)--Torin (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Где бы взять корректора...

Добил таки статью http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tyumen в предельном объеме от своей осведомленности. Имею сильное подозрение что написано на "рязанском" английском где бы взять знающего человека особо злобные языковые ляпы заполировать? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я сделаю (когда, правда, не знаю). Спасибо за такое существенное расширение статьи!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, February 26, 2009 (UTC)

Set indices

First, I want to apologize that I didn't leave a note at WT:RUSSIA when we were discussing the Russian set index articles at WT:DPL. For some reason, it never even crossed my mind to do so, but it was certainly wrong to go ahead without notifying other projects involved. Second, I've left a couple of new questions at WT:DPL for you. I hope they don't sound combative, and if they do, let me apologize in advance once again. When to use SIAs remains a bit of a grey area, so it will be good to work through this problem. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. In case you don't read Japanese, the talk page link in my signature also reads "yo". I like the picture of the blimp you have here.[reply]

Well, the situation was rectified on the same day with no harm done, so it's really not that big of a deal at this point. As for the questions, I do not think they are at all combative. I am happy to answer any questions regarding WP:RUSSIA's activities—they are a part of the collaborative process, so there is no need to apologize. I will post a reply to WT:DPL later today. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to borrow the blimp :) It is still in mint condition.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, February 27, 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Russian history

WikiProject Russian history and its talk page, I have redirected to WP:RUSSIA. As per the proposal from last year, and because there is no activity or objection from members (rather they supported it) of that project, I have done this. Is this the way to do it? Or should it be archived or something instead? --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with this. If someone complaints, we can always restore the page and mark it as "historical". We could also put a link to that project's archive on WP:RUSSIA's talk page (next to WP:RUSSIA's own archive), but that's just a formality. I've also redirected {{WikiProject Russian History}} banner to {{WikiProject Russia}}, so the assessment stats should merge in a few days, but it'd be great to run a bot replacing that banner (along with the {{WPRUSSIA}} redirect) on the actual talk pages so the article alerts service covers both projects.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:09, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use

Опять тону в языковых барьерах :) Пришел бот, говорит неправильно/неполностью описал права на использование картинки. См мой Talks. Суть проблемы - в статье использован скриншот из Google Earth о чем я честно написал и дал копирайт правообладателя снимка (того кто делает их для гугла). В качестве предпололжительной лицензи указал Fair Use как наиболее подходящее по смыслу. Теперь пришел копирайт бот и чего то там бухтит. В том птичьем юридическом разделе куда он отсылает такие буквы, которыя по русски то не знаю... можно это как-то без особой гловной боли разрулить или проще снимок из статьи вынести попросту?Romualdas Arm (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Проще всего вынести. Толку от этого снимка никакого, а добраться до него можно и через сервис координат — кому надо, тот найдёт.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:18, March 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yefremov and Efremov

As I know you love doing disambigs, perhaps you would like to look at Efremov and Yefremov? Perhaps not? :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this one's easy. Since Ivan Yefremov is set as the primary target (one to which "Yefremov" redirects), I simply redirected "Efremov" there as well. Whether the primary target should be Ivan, the town, or nothing at all (i.e., "Yefremov" should be a disambig instead of Yefremov (disambiguation)) is, of course, open to discussion if anyone cares to open it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, March 11, 2009 (UTC)

Privislinsky Krai

Please see my comments at Talk:Vistula land#Name and purpose. This article needs attention, and I am honestly not sure what to do with it... was it even an official Krai? Please comment there, if you can. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, March 11, 2009 (UTC)

If you can dig out the books, it would be great. Re this - amusingly, I haven't decyphered the cyrillic then; now I see what you mean - the last word is Krai - but I missed it there. Could you translate rest of the map (legend wise)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get the books; just don't get your hopes too high—the few books dealing with the administrative divisions of Poland of the 19th century that I have are mostly reference lists of populated places, but I'll see if there's anything useful in the intros.

Regarding the legend, here's the translation. The scale of the map is 48 versts per English inch. Left column of the legend:

Governorate-level town
Uyezd (district)-level town
Non-uyezd towns (those which had town status but did not serve as uyezd seats)/posad
Railroad

Right column:

State border
Governorate border
Uyezd border

Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:52, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

1993 Russian constitutional crisis

Hey Ezhiki, can you please lock 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, as there is sustained edit warring on the article. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before you do that, could you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DR2006kl first, and then as an admin, I guess you can make up your mind what to do or not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article is locked for two weeks. Let's see how it goes with the discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't wish the page to be protected (see Russavia's talk). There's no real reason for protection: I can even live with the other user's intro some time (since it will be reverted by other users, anyway), slowly but surely I was developing the article, adding sources I encounter while surfing on the net; 'the other party' has failed to produce any sources whatsoever, so I cannot really find a consensus with an obvious POV-warrior, finally my dear opponent's ad hominem arguments have made me very reluctant as to further arguments with him the fun part being that he accused me of introducing Russavia so as to by-pass 3RR there, Russavia being 'a friend of Miacek'. Indeed, I consider Russavia, with whom I have disagreed more than once, a constructive user, but so what. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Miacek! Thanks for the note, but the protection I imposed was basically due to the fact that the revert war was going on (I'm not taking any sides, mind you). Locking up an article is the very first step to stopping that madness. Please try to work out a compromise with DR2006kl while the protection is in effect—I understand the problems you described above, but making just one more good-faith effort to resolve the issue at hand amicably never hurt anyone. If this two-week lock-down leads nowhere, we'll try other methods of resolving this (and if you prefer a different administrator to get involved, please let me know beforehand—I'll step aside). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

Cooky

Jchthys has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

OK, I can't with much certainty tell what I did to deserve this, but thanks anyway!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:06, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Your cookie has been regurgitated

Remember this? Well I can tell you how overjoyed I am in seeing a deletion log on many of the talk pages which are found in Category:Category-Class Russia articles. And even more overjoyed in finding your name next to most of the deletions. I am going to kill you!

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the cookie, it was scrumptilicious!! --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eat someone else's cookie today with some modification of {{subst:munch}}!

Deletions? What deletions? OK, maybe I (vaguely) recall doing something like that, but you realize that the cat talks in question can be restored just as easily? Plus, as a self-proclaimed deletionist, one'd think you'd appreciate all the trouble I went through cleaning up all that stuff? You know that you owe me a cookie now?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:58, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

I owe a cookie? You snooze, you lose. Isn't that one of life's ethos'? Having a look, there are literally thousands of categories which need to be place with all your category are belong to us. I'll be doing that over the period of weeks I think, as it is mind-numbingly boring, that is for sure. I'm still trying to finish several articles, including the Austrian ambassador list which I want to use as an example to try and get other Russian embassies to licence their website materials under CC. Then I find a subject I couldn't quite believe we didn't have an article on which I have to do as well. Oh the joy, joy, joy. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cats, ambassadors, designers—anything not to do the sourcing of the Heroes of Russia list, eh? ;) Anyway, I have restored all the cat talks I previously deleted, and yes, you do still owe me a cookie. It's my talk page; people have the right to store anything here safely without it being, ahem, eaten by the oppressive omni-present evil leaders of evil groups.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:19, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

There, your cookie is back --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I should tell you, as I am a commissar who looks after his subservient troops, I shared that cookie around with them, and we all had to regurgitate it. I did, however, have to give half to my boss, and he refused to give it back, claiming "all your cookie are belong to us". So I cooked you up a new one, with an additional ingredient. Enjoy! --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Like the way I've avoided that other thing? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gnomsovet

Hi, could you do anything about it? The user enters illiterate rant and party propaganda on the pages of his 'favourite' political parties, typical example here: POVed and almost impossible to comprehend. Similar POV-pushing at KPRF page (whatever sources I bring, they mean nothing for the user concerned). Also, repeated copy-and-paste moves of an article, with no intention to use regular ways of requested move. I can't endlessly revert his changes, no matter how poor his machine translation-style English is, since I'd get blocked for breaking 3 RR. A more funny example of user:Gnomsovet's miscomprehensions is introducing the term 'socially conservative' as UR ideology. The guy is obviously unaware what the term means in English (i.e. opposition to liberalism, not 'compassionate conservatism' that he seems to presume ;-). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do much about the content disputes you are having, and I am sorry I cannot at this time offer myself in a mediator capability due to time constraints. I will, however, give this user a warning regarding unacceptability of copy-paste moves and will monitor his contributions for compliance. As you know, copy-paste moves are unacceptable in that they interfere with GFDL compliance, so continuing to do them without regards to proper procedures qualifies as disruptive editing, which is a blockable offense. On the same note, reverting such disruptive copy-paste moves would be exempt from the 3RR rule. Seeing how the rest of this user's contributions are written in an incomprehensible and illiterate English, I am inclined to classify them as disruptive editing as well, but would advise to seek further input, as the content dispute component is undoubtedly also present in your interactions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:18, March 16, 2009 (UTC)

Konosha

Why did you remove the city/toen infobox from the article? I don't quite get the argument of being no town. Imho the russian terms don't exactly match the English terms anyhow and shouldn't there be some infobox for any kind of settlement? Also the standard infobox seems to be used for urban-type settlements as well, which is the case for Konosha. Regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Russian city}} was tailored specifically for cities/towns, while Konosha is just an urban-type settlement (the difference is quite important). It is impossible to properly fill out the city/town infobox for a locality of a different type. An infobox specifically for urban-type settlement will be developed in the future, but at the moment the consensus within WP:RUSSIA is that it is not yet needed, as 99% of articles about urban-type settlements are still very short. Adding an infobox that is triple the size of the actual article is simply ugly, and especially so when the infobox does not even fit the purpose and is mostly empty anyway! Why would you want to add an infobox if you intend to leave most of its fields empty? Hope this answers your question. Please let me know if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:57, March 18, 2009 (UTC)

Sokuluk

Hi! since yu can read russian and have access to russian/sovjet census data maybe you could help me with that city in Kyrgyzstan. It was somewhat unsourced (looking correct though), however i found a website confirming the population information, but a more official source would be definitely a plus. Oh and by the way do you know by any chance a somewhat reliable English source for statistical data on russia and former soviet republics? Regards --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I am sorry, but I don't have much on Kyrgyzstan. As far as geography goes, my scope of interest is pretty much limited to the territory of Russia. I do have some data on the places in former Soviet republics, but it is mostly very outdated and limited to major entities (oblasts, cities). I have almost nothing about villages like this one. I tried looking up Sokuluk, but all I could find was a confirmation that it's a real place (d'oh) and its administrative jurisdiction as of the 1960s. Not very helpful, I'm afraid. I did, however, find its 1989 population (see below).

The Census information is available online. You can find the link in the Konosha article—the 2002 Census data are from the official 2002 Census website (so you can't get any more official/reliable than that), but the catch with the link is that it has to be viewed in IE. There are also Excel sheets available on that website (www.perepis2002.ru). The 1989 and earlier Census data are available here. Note, however, that neither source makes population data for all rural localities available—only the data for top-level divisions, districts, cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and the largest rural localities are available. Fortunately, Sokuluk is large/important enough to have been included—as of the 1989 Census, its population is reported at 22,605 (11,001 male and 11,604 female; source).

Regarding a reliable source on stats data for Russia, the only one I know is the English version of the 2002 Census website. Not all of the data are available there, but there is still plenty for it to be useful. As for the former Soviet republics, sorry, but I know of no good English sources (you might want to ask around on the talk pages of appropriate wikiprojects, however). Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Hi! Just so you know, I've added both the Russia and Soviet Union projects to the script, as requested. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am, however, having trouble making it work. Does the script work in IE6? I can't check other browsers at the moment, but the new tab does not show up at all in IE6.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 16:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

Once more! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be the critical voice?

I am working on the High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve and as Sergey Vorobyov says, "For Russia it’s pretty new and very risky, because as soon as you announce any lists of names – doesn’t matter who collects them – there will always be critics." Would you be interested in perhaps being that critical voice (but on the talk page of that userspace article)? I'm gathering info from English sources first, and surprisingly, most of it is neutral, or even positive (I guess it's being seen as a hit to Putin somewhat, so that explains that), but of course in the interests of NPOV, we need some views from ~~nutjobs~~ critics in the article, and I can incorporate that into the article as I go thru and right it. Interested? No pressure. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what exactly you want me to do with it? At this point it's just a list of names/employment/position/dob. What's to criticize?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding the usual responses from the usual critics. You will surely know what I mean, in that there is always going to be someone who claims this is throwback to USSR, etc, etc -- the usual responses -- or even criticism in regards to people on the list, etc. Even if you are just able to provide some links. So I guess in short, what am I asking? Shit, I guess perhaps just do a search, if you can, and see if you find anything you think I might be able to use to provide balanced criticism in the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this subject excites me much, but I guess I could do some research. Any particular people in the list you'd want to tackle first?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

So, the director-generals, rectors, editors-in-chief, United Russia members and deputy ministers in the list are the most highly trained professionals and not cronies from nomenklatura? Don't take this list seriously, this is just another pompous way to redistribute some money. It is not worth any substantial criticism, I am afraid. Well, it is not throwback to the USSR just because apparently they are still there. Colchicum (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, see? Colchicum is so much more capable of handling this task :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

Well it doesn't excite me much either, truth be known. I think part of the reason I did it, was first and foremost for individual article development on those people who are notable, and also to see how many already have articles -- and not surprisingly, there's hardly any. I'm not really looking for individually targetted criticism on individuals, but "criticism" (either positive or negative) on the "Nomenklatura-2009" in general. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do. Don't expect much, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum...go away...I'll also fess up something else, I saw that you provided another update to our APEC article, and I thought that seeing as this is the second unsolicited update to an article, I thought I could encourage you to continue with editing :D P.S. Colchicum, if you want to add sourced criticism to the talk page of the article, feel free to do so, and I will incorporate it all, even if it means getting Ezhiki off-the-hook. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who knows Ezhiki, sooner or later, one of these days, I may even get around to doing that referencing that I so obviously don't want to do. Don't suppose I can interest you in that Colchicum? :D --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Hey, don't you "go away" people from my talk page! Colchicum is just as welcome here as you are; I can't help that between the two of you you have problems of your own. As for APEC, since I try to keep up with Vlad news anyway, I thought I might update the APEC article just as well as the news comes in. Which, I guess, is a little less work for you :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oh cmon Ezhik, don't tell me that you missed the 'point' of my "go away" comment? ;) I'm sure Colchicum got it. It's not "go away" as in "go away", it's "go away" as in "go away, don't let Ezhiki get away from this one". As I said, both of ya is welcome and free to add info to talk page. With news from VVO, do you find vladnews.ru has info that you wouldn't otherwise find on regnum.ru (which is where I am assuming you keep up to date on). --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read Vladnews.ru every now and then, but I like Regnum better because of their news email service—you can create a subscription and only receive the news relevant to Primorsky Krai (or whatever—they have quite a selection of topics). So, when I get a piece of news about APEC in the mail, I try to update the WP article soon after. If it's something big, I'd normally check with other news sources so I don't miss some important aspect. The last two updates, obviously, did not fall under "big" :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I use that feature of Regnum already myself with different topics. At the moment, I simply look for anything that may be interesting for future referencing and then Zotero it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that Colchicum, but again, what we think isn't really all that important (myself, I can see the positive and the negative in such things), it's what the sources say that is important -- and that's what I am actually surprised with, even after looking at the "usual suspects", I can't really see all that much in regards to criticism, even such as that as what you wrote with your opinion, and it's unusual I must say. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Boris Kovalchuk is there is amazing. If this is not cronyism, I don't know what it is. I am sure this will not go unnoticed by the media (and I don't mean Pervy Kanal of course). As to redlinks, Zadornov, Melamed and Kosachyov are somewhat notable, at least I know who they are, but they are all very boring. Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we all did not sign up to create an encyclopedia of fun, so off to work, you! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's the type of information I am talking about, but I can't <ref>Colchicum (or Russavia) on Ezhiki's talk page</ref>. The list has been available now for a month, perhaps you can find something from RS which states such opinion? There's actually quite a few on the list who should be bluelinks -- Pleshakova is one name that jumped out for me--she's got the reputation of being a shrewd manager in the industry. Those in the State Duma are also notable (WP:POLITICIAN or something like that), as is Volozh (Minister for Internet, anyone?). And yep, most of them are boring, but such is life -- the redlinks really do show just how underdeveloped ru:enwiki really is at times. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those, I'll incorporate them in somewhow. Whilst not "criticism", the "scepticism" will do. At least I will have tried to present far opposite view, if you know what I mean. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always know what you mean :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, March 20, 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Russia

It has been about six months since Russavia's proposed new bold format was developed, using a table, smaller pictures, names of heads of missions and cross accreditations. We did not come to any consensus about using it - but it was a good opportunity to see how it would look. May I also add we were worn down by Russavia's persistence that his design stay, that we redo the taxonomy of the DMBC articles ("by sending state", "by receiving state"), and we allow all those articles of Russian missions (and missions to Russia) to exist, even if they just consist of the name of the ambassador and its address.

I am still not convinced that the design of Russavia's format is an improvement on the existing design, or that these articles are the right place to list heads of missions or accreditations. I have not seen any significant endorsement of his new format, nor anybody stating they wanted to make wholesale changes to all articles.

Please note what the Arbitration Committee states about MoS conflicts:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.
Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

As the first major contributor of this article I intend now to revert the article back to its original style, including any subsequent updates.

Please add your views in the talk page of Diplomatic missions of Russia.

Kransky (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why I am getting this message—I've never edited that list. I remember being asked my opinion about the "old" and the "new" layouts, and my opinion was that the format proposed by Russavia was better—it makes information easier to find and more accessible, more visually appealing, more structured, easier to maintain, and overall more helpful to our readers. I also understood how changing the format in all articles would be an inconvenience to our editors, but I also pointed out that convenience of the editors takes back seat to the convenience of our readers all the time, every time, no exceptions.

If you ask my opinion once again today, you will find that it has not changed since the last time. However, since I am neither a contributor to the articles about diplomatic relations nor exactly am very interested in the subject, voicing my opinion when asked is pretty much the extent of my willingness to get involved. Working out the details and the approach to handling this list in particular or all similar lists in general is up to the members of whatever WikiProject this list is in scope. However, if you ask me, leaving a proposed list up for six months and doing nothing about soliciting the opinions about it is not the way to improve things. Assuming it has not yet been done, I'd recommend actively starting a discussion regarding how these lists are to be handled and what the better layout is. Village pump or CENT should do nicely.

I also disagree this issue has anything to do with the MoS excerpt you cited. The "styles" discussed in that passage refer first and foremost to insubstantial (although important) style issues—such as choice of a variety of English used in the article, use of spaces in headers/list bullets, choice of the style of referencing, etc. Deciding on the layout of a list, especially when the choices are so dissimilar, is of a lot more importance than those minor details, as it affects our readership to a far greater extent and thus should be discussed more thoroughly.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, March 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oscillation

В пятницу некий участник с ником из японских иероглифов провел массовую замену интервиков в разных языковых проектах на статью Oscillation, в русском Колебания. И тут обнаружилось, что интервики в японской совершенно не соответсвуют этим статьямю Все они ведут на статью Vibration,а русских интервико два, ведущих как на статьи Вибрация и Виброизоляция. Просьба посмотреть у себя и если есть участники, знающие японский и участвующие в японской вике, чтобы они рассмотрели эту ситуацию. Сегодня я посмотрел на японскую вику, изменений в той статье пока нет.--Torin (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я убрал лишнюю ru-ссылку в Vibration, а также удалил ja, поскольку эта интервики-ссылка вела на эквивалент статьи Oscillation в японской вики через редирект (откуда и пошла вся путаница). В японской вики Oscillation является редиректом на Vibration, а в остальных виках эти статьи раздельны. С участниками знающими японский я, к сожалению, не знаком.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:50, March 23, 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind

Would you mind giving Ambassador of Russia to Austria a going over for if possible? Copy-editing, whatever. And perhaps if you can think of anything that I should expand on or include. A few people who have seen the list have stated they believe it is WP:FL quality, and if so, I want to get it there ASAP, as I want to use it as an example when I approach other Russian embassies for their permission to use photos, materials, etc. Having something like this to show them may make them more inclined to give permission, etc. If you could do that I'd appreciate it, if you can't/don't wanna, just tell me and I will find some other sap to do it :) Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but if can think of someone else to sign up (hopefully, a more enthusiastic fella), please do so. When it comes to content, I am usually very slow on the uptake (because I want things to be as perfect as possible—e.g., did you know that I consider this FL only ~25% done?), and it often takes me months (literally!) to produce something useable...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, March 25, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if I can con someone else into copy-editing it, I will and will let you know. Oh, you are like me, and it often takes me at least 6 months to produce something useable, if you get my drift. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News wire? You think?

You echoed my thoughts exactly. But, I didn't realise just how much there is a newswire on WP -- Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War. I'm lost, perhaps you can tell me, in amongst all of the guerilla phases of the war, when did the war phase of the war take place? :) --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no war phase; it's all propaganda :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

Well there you have it. The solution. Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) should be moved to Wikipedia propaganda phase of the Second Chechen War (2009). --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, Mozambique

MOS:DAB says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link."

WP:WTAF says "Editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject BEFORE adding a link to the article to list pages, disambiguation pages, or templates."

58.8.13.68 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF is an essay and is not binding. Common sense also says that if someone created a template and included one or more of its (red) links on a disambiguation page, they most likely had a reason to do so (from my personal experience such a reason is most commonly workflow organization). Instead of blindly removing red links which are very obviously valid (and just happen not to meet some minor technical Wikipedia guideline at the moment), you might first want to try figuring out who added that link and why (wasn't me, by the way). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:24, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please also note that the red link is not only backlinked from a template, but from an article (Ancuabe District) as well. If you want to be technical, that should be justification enough.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know WP:WTAF is an essay, thanks.

I didn't "blindly" remove any redlinks.

Thanks for the info on the Ancuabe District link - though that page appears to simply have all the template content twice? Is that really necessary? When I looked at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Nina,_Mozambique I couldn't see any simple way (ie without viewing the source for each and every page) to determine if any of those links were *not* from a template - is there an easy way to do that? 58.8.13.68 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved with the development of articles on Mozambique, but you might want to ask this guy who is—he'll be able to give you estimates as to when all those red links are going to turn blue, as well as if having the list in the article and in the template is really necessary (it could have been an oversight, but it could have just as easily been a part of the development plan).

Regarding finding out whether a backlink is direct or via a template, there is, unfortunately, no easy way to tell. For places like this one, however, it is a safe bet to assume that any backlink that sounds as a place name is most likely there due to the inclusion of the template, and anything else is probably not. Here, the district link stands out pretty well, so it is worth checking out, while everything else is likely to be just stubs with the transcluded template. Hope it helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

Well there are 26,000 articles on geo places in Mozambique. I gave up on starting them as I couldn't find any data. Sure they are worthy of articles but I'm going where the info is first which aint Mozambique at present! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location map

I rewrote ru:Template:ПозКарта last night: from now on, it supports neat maps in azimuthal and custom projections (such as Russia and Antarctica, it shares classes with thumbnail images and has more reliable wikitext and styles; also, annoying clickableness on pictures is now gone. Considering indignations that have appeared after I had made some changes to {{Location map}} and its protected state, may I ask you to upgrade the template in English Wikipedia as well? — Kalan ? 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite an improvement! Can you test the code in en_wiki and if all is well, post the parts which would go to protected pages somewhere (your userspace, for example) so I could transfer it to proper locations? Documentation, I guess, would also need to be updated? I am somewhat hesitant to test it myself since it's been a while since I worked with this template's code while you are still fresh. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

CodeFixer

CodeFixer isn't working either? That's weird... it's not based off of morebits like AssessorTags is. The tab only appears in edit mode... did you check that? –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it must be stupid IE6 again. I'll leave the script on for now and will check it with other browsers at home. By the way, would you be interested in contacting user:Cameltrader and perhaps coordinating inclusion of CodeFixer's functionality into his most excellent Advisor script?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

(responded to at my talk page; saw it there before I noticed this). –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prime Ministers of Russia

Огромная просьба заблокировать этот шаблон! --SeNeKa (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Заблокировал. Только прекращайте, может быть, вести себя как малые дети? В чём, собственно, проблема? На странице обсуждения ни слова...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:38, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Sestroretsk rail station (disambigation)

Кому-то помешал. Подал на восстановление.--Andrey! 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я не стал восстанавливать, нет смысла. Во-первых, слово в скобках написано с опечаткой (надо "disambiguation"), во-вторых, для железнодорожных станций "railway station", если мне не изменяет память, уже является способом разрешения неоднозначностей (т. е. если бы "Сестрорецк" было бы уникальным названием станции, то статья бы находилась под титулом "Sestroretsk"). Поскольку же "Сестрорецк" это прежде всего город, то неоднозначностей у нас имеется три — город и две станции; соответственно страничку я перевоссоздал на Sestroretsk (disambiguation). Ссылки из шаблонов и hatnotes тоже поправил.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Я согласен, свернул обсуждение. Посмотри, правильно ли я это сделал?--Andrey! 07:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Всё нормально.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Проверь пожалуйста русские слова. Источники West half ring East half ring. Спасибо.--Andrey! 18:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Готово.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some opinion here please

Over at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Request_for_cites_from_3_sources could you possibly provide some opinion there. An editor has used http://books.google.com/books?q=%22tomb%20of%20the%20unknown%20rapist%22&le=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=gp as verification of sources. I have requested that full paragraphs be provided so that one can see that the sources are in fact talking about this particular memorial (there are 3 in Berlin), and that they are in context of what is in the article -- the existence of a joke book gives me enough cause for concern. Editors are using a variety of excuses to avoid (refusing to) doing this, and in fact, the editor who added these citations then added "verification needed" to the citations, indicating that they have not even cited the information for themselves, but are in fact referencing a Google search, which is not a reliable source (of course). As this is an encyclopaedic setting, such styles of referencing surely can not be tolerated? Whilst it is the belief of some editors that such names in an article for a war memorial is not on (myself included), we aren't WP:CENSOR, so have included the claim referenced to the only person who we can cite in its entireity.[3]. Your input welcomed. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, you sure know how to delight me on a dull Monday morning! Rrrravishing stuff! Sigh... I might take a look at it later.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that :) I've seen your reply, and I have to respectedly disagree, as there are original research issues here, which I have now expanded upon on the talk page, which clearly demonstrate that original research has taken place in order to place those references and assertions into the article. Perhaps you may want to look at that. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal talk:Russia/Things you can do

Please engage in discussion at Portal talk:Russia/Things you can do. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:55, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

So you know

Regarding this, I don't hate Russia, I want to see Putin and his sock puppets removed. I lost my temper a bit when I read it, that's true, and looking back I shouldn't have written it and I regret I wrote it. But still, those journalist and lawyers are getting shot dead in Russia, so my statement did hold some ground. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was actually aimed at both parties. However, best of luck with your temper in the future. Perhaps remembering that we are working to create the best encyclopedia in the world, not build a troll feeder, will help next time. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

If you edited a bit more about the "dark sides" of Russia that would help (also) to make this "the best encyclopedia in the world" instead of the tourist guide it looks like now (most of the time), why did I have to be the one who put in the information that the mayor of Kirovsk, Murmansk Oblast was shot dead? I read recently that lately 4 other mayors in Russia where shot dead also, but couldn't find any info on it, maybe you can be of assistant there. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response, let me ask you two questions:

Why should I be interested in adding such information?
What makes you think I don't add it when it comes my way?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:33, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I acted in a Roy Keane plying style yesterday. I misjudged you. I do think that there are too many wiki-editors who only bring "happy" info into (articles). I have had edit's who where a bit "promotional" too but I also seem to be one of the few who brings in negative stories about Ukraine in articles (I'm not counting the editors who seem to want to make it look like Ukraine is murdering the Russian language in Ukraine, they might have a "promotional agenda" to). My point is that wikipedia needs negative (for some) info to, otherwise it becomes a total joke. Obviously you are one of the people who do put that in. So once again, sorry. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS that's why I still regret Kuban kazak was banned... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I understand. I myself simply do not enjoy adding negative stuff, although I wouldn't hesitate to add it to any article, regardless of its national affiliation, if it happens to fall into my scope of interests. Overall, however, I believe that my limited Wikipedia time is best spent on editing subjects which hardly anyone else besides me can write/expand/organize—an area for which political bickering, obviously, does not qualify. It's not unlike what good ol' Adam Smith said—if there are several things you can do real well, you should be doing the one you are the best at and leave everything else to others, even if they don't do it as well as you might have :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Good we cleared this up. Roy Keane has a good article by the way :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APEC 2012

I came across this powerpoint file on Kremlin.ru and it has maps and artists impressions of the summit facilities, etc. Do you think anything in amongst the images in the file are worth extracting and utilising on the article? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Having one of those maps along with one or two of the 3-D model images would go long ways to make the article more appealing visually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:00, April 2, 2009 (UTC)

That database

hey bud, just thought i'd check with ya to see how ya is progressing with that Russian localities database you have been working on. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for you on that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been slow :( If all goes well in real life, I should be done with that damn database within a year, tops (quite possibly less, but you never know). The database currently contains over 100,000 localities, covering 48 federal subjects, which means I am about 65% done. It's not practical to deploy it in this state, but if you have any inquiries, don't hesitate to let me know; I'll be happy to run a query against what's already entered. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Nah, there's nothing in particular which I was needing, was just seeing how you were progressing with it. I've marked off 13 April 2010 on my calendar for you. ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark the 14th instead. I started this craziness on April 14, 2007; might as well wrap it up in exactly three years...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, April 14, 2009 (UTC)

We are talking human years on Earth here yes? If so, 14 April 2010 it is. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look over this if you can

I know so sooner or later a lot of the Russian ones will come up again for AfD, so I've taken it upon myself to get at least one of them done. Would you be able to, if you get a chance, please read over the Empire section at User:Russavia/Australia–Russia_relations#Russian_Empire and let me know of any feedback you may have on it; clarity, how it reads, etc. I hope to have the USSR and RF sections completed in the next week. Any input you have on that section would be appreciated, as the Empire days are not my strong point. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It reads pretty well overall. I did not go into the sources and all—I assume you did you research—but I did fix a few typos and made some, mostly cosmetic, changes. Some transliterations may still be in need of correcting, but that's a whole other story and definitely not a priority.

There was just one sentence I had trouble parsing; you should probably word it differently: "[i]n 1820, Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen arrived in New Zealand, with his Antarctic research ships Vostok and Mirny, under the command of Mikhail Lazharev, with Mikhail Vasilyev also on board". Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:26, April 14, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kind "semi-barbarous and despotic" Ezhiki for those fixes. You also found an error which I didn't notice about Bellingshausen, it was NSW not NZ where he arrived. I'll keep on plodding away with the other sections now. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Oblast maps

Losino-Petrovky and Elektrogorsk were present at my map, I've added labels to my template just now. But we need a new version of this map with Vlasikha and Zvyozdny added and Zhukovsky area expanded. I need check Vlasikha and Zvyozdny boundary descriptions to the maps I have in my archive. We need their boundaries and areas to subtract from respective rayons. Several days ago Vlasikha and Zvyozdny were mentioned in the law fixing the future selfgovernement election rules - I hope the city councils & mayors elections would complete these urban okrugs constituting.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it makes sense to wait until the urban okrugs corresponding to Vlasikha and Zvyozdny ZATOs are officially established. As for the boundaries, a textual description of the (administrative) boundaries is actually available in the Decrees of Jan 19, 2009—are they sufficient for you to do the map or are they too vague? The boundary posts are, unfortunately, all referred to by their numbers—I don't know how hard/easy it is for you to map them to the actual coordinates (I sure can't do it).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:33, April 15, 2009 (UTC)

Their former boundaries were wery clear as were fenced with the concrete walls. I need check were any areas added outside the walls. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wish I could help, but I can't :) Good luck, and thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:45, April 15, 2009 (UTC)

I loved your comment

I loved your comment on:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Australia–Luxembourg_relations

Snarky. Nice to see you again. Ikip (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperated, really. I just can't parse it in my head that ambassadorial relations can be viewed as "non-notable" by so many people... Sometimes I wonder what would be left of Wikipedia if those folks are not kept in check.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:05, April 16, 2009 (UTC)

I've looked for more sources yesterdan and this morning on this relationship, and I still can't find anything of great substance which would indicate to myself that there is a notable relationship between Australia and Luxembourg. Also, you may want to note that the Australian ambassador to Belgium has dual-accreditation to Luxembourg, and is based in Brussels. The usual reason for non-resident ambassadors is that the nature of the relationship may be that a resident embassy (perhaps also with military, cultural, press attaches, etc) is not warranted due to the limited extent of their relations. It can also be a matter of the costs involved in having resident representation, but this is more common with smaller countries, where one ambassador may have accreditation to a large number of countries. A good example of this is Bhutan (Foreign_relations_of_Bhutan#Diplomatic_relations_and_missions) where it has diplomatic relations with a number of countries in Europe, but the Bhutanese mission to the UN in Geneva is responsible for diplomatic matters in all of those countries - and dare I say it, the only countries which would have notable relations with Bhutan are India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand and Nepal (and also perhaps China, despite the lack of diplomatic relations between the two). I would perhaps contact User:Kransky and ask him if he can find any info on relations with Luxembourg, he may have something that I am unable to find. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the effort. My stance is basically that even if the countries do not have dedicated ambassadors, the dual accreditation information may still be valuable to readers in that it would prompt them about the underdeveloped nature of the existing relations. As long as this "no-information", so to speak, is sourced and verifiable, I see no reason to get rid of it. Others, unfortunately, tend to disagree, as the most recent round of AfDs would attest. What happened to the "compendium of all human knowledge" paradigm, I wonder sometimes...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, April 17, 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Murmansk Oblast

Hi, what do you think of the economy chapter I added to Murmansk Oblast? I will probably be creating and expanding more economy chapters of the Russian regions in the future. Any suggestions on what those sections should look like? Offliner (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I think it's rather concise, it is still much, much better than nothing :) The information itself is good, but in my opinion the prose could use better structure; but then again—structure would come as more information is added. I am also a little wary of the sources you used—they are by no means bad, but I'd prefer to see something more academic (and yes, I understand that academic sources on the economy of Murmansk Oblast may not exactly be easy to find). All in all, however, the section is quite solid and useable as written. Keep up the good work!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, April 17, 2009 (UTC)

Patronymic as disambig

I went through WP:NCP and I can't find the mention of patronymic as preferred disambig method for Russian people. It actually says "patronymics... are not usually used in the title of the English Wikipedia article" in the Tolstaya example on that page, and it says "disambiguation aid is rarely to be expected from adding or subtracting a second last name artificially": WP:NCP#Multiple surnames. Is there some Russian-specific policy that I'm missing that contradicts that? Thanks. Geregen2 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NCP is right about patronymics not usually being used in the titles of the articles—we only use them when there is ambiguity (which is not "usually"). If no ambiguity exists, the article should almost certainly be moved to the title without the patronymic (exceptions are made only the people who are very well-known under their full names—such as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, for example). However, when two or more (Russian) people share the same first and last name, patronymics are the most natural way to disambiguate between them. The practice is not documented anywhere—no one simply got around to that—but it is rather common. It was discussed on several occasions in the past in various places (mostly around WP:RUSSIA), and I don't recall anyone ever being opposed it.

To clarify further, a patronymic is not a surname. The Tolstaya example does not apply here as it deals with double last names; a patronymic is a modified name of the person's father (see the patronymic article for details). Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, April 20, 2009 (UTC)

Non-working links of Russia subdivisions

Hey, Ëzhiki. To continue our talk, may I please see your changes? jlog3000 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: [4] and [5]. You are welcome to muck around my contributions as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:09, April 21, 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

Thanks for letting me know! I wasn't sure whether to mark the importance of towns/cities as Mid or Low, so I just left the section unmarked. But now that I know for future reference, another person won't have to go over them another time. Thanks again! Cheers! --Laurinavicius (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. By the way, if you use common sense when assessing the class/importance, it's no big deal if you are off by one mark in either direction—assessments are used as a general guidance, not as some rigid system we just have to get right. If you are unsure, it's always better to venture your best educated guess rather than to leave the parameter completely blank. Even if you end up way off, it's not like corrections can't be made later :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:02, April 24, 2009 (UTC)

Dobryi

I marked this for deletion, I think correctly. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move for Aleksandr Vishnevsky (actor)

Hello. Would you please explain why you have moved this page back to the less-common form? The edit history indicates "anglicised" name, when Aleksandr is already anglicised. None of the sources give his name in the form you have re-instated, and I cannot see anything on Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian that justifies the less-common form. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:RUS recommendations, you are welcome to demonstrate on the article's talk page which variant is the most common in English and then move the article accordingly. I, however, wouldn't say that the "Alexander" form (which is the one anglicized, as opposed to "Aleksandr", which is romanized) is not used in English for this person at all—a simple catalog search would confirm the contrary.

In any case, if/when you move the article, please make sure that the disambiguation is done by the patronymic, not by the occupation, regardless of the spelling choice for the first name. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, April 27, 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Dagestan

Good work there! My Russian knowlege is about two words, neither of which I can write, so that's why I made that error. Much more work on that would not be suitable given the relatively minor page nature.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when two good sources gave different proportions, I just had to investigate :) The article, however, can still be expanded with (at least) rules and regulations in regards to the flag waving etc. procedures, but that'd better be done by someone who cares about this subject a lot more than I do :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, April 29, 2009 (UTC)

Template loops

Here you have 75 of them. All (with perhaps 5-6 exeptions) in articles that use Template:Infobox Russian city. By the way, did you see my edit to [Template:PosMapFS]]? Debresser (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see you did. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and I saw the loops, too. Trying to figure out what the heck went wrong there right now. If you have any ideas, please shoot ;)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

You updated Template:PosMapFS‎. Every name was entered twice. Shouldn't that have been three times? Just a quick guess, I'm not a programmer. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's definitely not it. These names are basically just different variations of how the infobox parameter would most likely be entered. There could be any number of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'm watching your talkpage. But the template consists of three parts. Shouldn't they contain the same information? Debresser (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that. I thought you were talking about the number of lines for each federal subject in each section. The reason why I entered them only in the first two sections is because all of the federal subjects are already listed in section three (that section is not supposed to be called unless there is a locator map available). That's how it's always been done, so the problem must be elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:13, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

I added it. There is some change in Aldan, Russia. Perhaps that gives you a clue? Debresser (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there just aren't any maps like that? Debresser (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing—when a location map does not exist, the template is supposed just to show the city of the map of Russia. Instead, it shows the map of the federal subject on the map of Russia and errors out on the region-specific map (which does not exist). Why that is, I am still not getting. It used to work perfectly before. I'll keep working on this, but if you have any more ideas, please continue running them by me—I could use all the help at this point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

But that did remove the template loop, BTW. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Have a look at this diff in Template:PosMapFS. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fuck! Isn't that ironic that the most convoluted problems are usually caused by something as simple as a typo? Thanks a bunch for finding this! I owe you one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

It happens. you're welcome. Debresser (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And all template loops are gone from Category:Template loop warnings. Which is what brought me here in the first place. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I don't know how long it would have taken me to finally realize the problem was as simple as it was! If in the future there is something I could help with, please don't hesitate to let me know. Like I said, I owe you one. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, April 30, 2009 (UTC)

Draft of new article

As i wrote on my talk page I started a draft about a band called Point Valid. I suppose my luck is to hard pressed for you to be an expert in the field, but if you could do some copyediting and write me you suggestions in that section of my talk page, that would help me a lot. (BTW, a picture I hope to obtain soon.) Debresser (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An expert? I haven't even heard of the bloody thing :) Anyway, since I am obviously being held up to my previous promise to return the "one" I owe "big", here is my analysis.

Before I delve into the copyediting issues though, I would first like to express my concern regarding the notability of the subject. Since I am no expert in this field, I am going to operate solely on the references provided in the draft.

Notablility of the bands, as you likely know, is covered by the WP:BAND guideline. The guideline's very first requirement is for the band to be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the [band] itself and reliable". Of eight references in your draft, only the SFScope's approximates this requirement, and since it's the only one, the "multiple works" clause is not being met here. Now, I personally don't see this as too big of a problem (I value verifiability a lot more than notability, but then, I'm a hard-core inclusionist), but should the article end up on AfD, I wouldn't bet on it to survive should the number and the quality of the references remain in its current state. One could almost say that the Diamond Star Project deserves a separate article more than the band itself, as most of the information in the article is about the project, with the band information being used only as a (rather short) backgrounder.

Anyway, as far as the other requirements of WP:BAND (2 through 12) go, I don't see Point Valid passing any one of them, so #1 is probably your best way to improve on.

Now, as for the copyediting side, I don't see many problems here. Here's what little I noticed:

"Valid" (the second word in the lede) should, I believe, be capitalized.
I would put a comma before "and Max Vidaver" because I am a serial comma freak, but that's a style decision and totally up to you. I only mention it because you did use the serial comma further down (before "and Bach").
A comma is not necessary in the "Ani wrote most of the music for the CD, and Asaro wrote most of the lyrics" sentence.
"Didn't" in the last sentence of The Diamond Star Project section needs to be replaced with "did not"—this is an encyclopedic article, so the formalities must be followed.
I am not sure what value the infobox presents—the article is rather short to be summarized, but, again, that's a style decision. I personally would mention the genres in the lede and drop the infobox altogether.
For the article this short of a size, should the band members really be mentioned three times (once in the lede, once in the infobox, and once in a separate section)? And why are the references used for the Members section lead anywhere but to the band's own site?

I hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. They might meet #10 also, since the music of their second CD is connected with a book that is or will probably be notable. But yes, I too am worried about wp:notability, although I think we'll make it. The sourcing worries me less. I think were even now. Didn't hurt, did it? Debresser (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update it with your notes. And somebody gave me a few more links to check, so the article will still grow a little. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't hurt at all; glad to be of assistance! Don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything else I can help with, although next time I'd really prefer if it were something I actually know something about :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

You might want to consider telling me what it is you "know something about". Then again, you might not. :) I too am far from an expert in this field. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "to-do" list on my user page should give you a pretty good idea. I assure you the things I know about but don't want to have anything to do with on Wikipedia are not listed there, so whatever pick you make from what is listed is going to be fine with me as far as willingness to help goes :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:56, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

Put it in main article namespace as Point Valid. I'm still waiting for a photograph, that's why I keep the infobox. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional input. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buckshot06/35th Rocket Division

If you have time Ezhiki, would you mind please taking a look at my draft and the original Russian article, and making any changes/suggestions/corrections as you see fit? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(prof) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look tomorrow or later this week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

OK, I went through it and made some corrections. I mostly paid attention to the geographic aspects; those should be fine now. As I understand this is a machine translation of the Russian text, there is still a lot of other (mostly copyediting) work left to do, but I trust you'll take care of that part. As always, if there's anything else I can do in terms of Russian geography, just whistle. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

As always Ezhiki, thats for your help. Please put Sirbirsky - know I've got the spelling wrong - on your list of things to do as a set article at some point. Not a high priority right now. Additionally, how did you find out the exact settlement - Western sources have always just been 'Uzhur' or 'Barnaul.'? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your draft said that the division is located in a closed settlement in Altai Krai, and since there is only one closed settlement in Altai Krai, it was a no-brainer—they also have a website, so it was easy to verify. Not to mention that the article in ru_wiki names it first thing in the lead, too :)

The reason you missed the name is probably because you relied on the machine translation a bit too much. "Sibirsky" in Russian means "Siberian" (cf. Siberian Federal District—Sibirsky federalny okrug), so instead of a very specific "closed settlement of 'Sibirsky'" the machine translation would have been fooled into producing a very generic "Siberian closed settlement", which, of course, is true overall, but not exactly true to the original :) Anyway, I'll add the task of making a dab to my to-do list—there are quite a few things by this name that could be disambiguated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Ezhiki, I really appreciate it. Just one thing - this closed settlement has a website? Isn't that a bit, er, open to publicity? Buckshot06(prof) 17:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like any other place in Russia, closed settlements have the right for local self-government, which is separate from the administrative aspects (the administrative aspects are handled via the federal government). The website deals primarily with the municipal aspects and does not divulge any classified information. One wouldn't expect the federal government to legislate how the residents of Sibirsky are to handle their, say, trash removal, would they? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Alexey Smirnov

Hello, just to let you know I've nominated this article for deletion. If you wish to start an article on one or all of these people, then I'll withdraw it straight away, but at the moment it doesn't meet MOS:DAB. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind it being nominated, as I don't have time to start all those articles myself. I, however, find it extremely sad that mindless technicalities make our editors delete pages which are, even in their sorry states, still of use to our readers. I understand it was nominated because it does not comply with MOSDAB... which only points out the problems with MOSDAB itself. The day when we start caring more about vigorously enforcing our pettiest rules than we do about our readers has, as it seems, arrived. Whatajoy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:46, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation by patronymic

Hi. In relation to your move of Alexei Smirnov (physicist) to Alexei Yuryevich Smirnov, but also in general, like here or here, you seem to follow a rule of disambiguating Russian people by patronymic rather than by occupation, with a summary implying that this is the generally accepted practice. However, I have not been able to locate a policy or guideline to that effect; could you point me to one, if it exists? In many cases, a person's patronymic is not nearly as recognizable (at least in the English-speaking world, to whom this Wikipedia caters) as their occupation or other distinguishing characteristic. In fact, WP:NCP#Multiple surnames specifically says that patronymics are not normally used for article titles in English Wikipedia, and actively discourages including additional names (whether middle names or additional surnames) in article titles merely for disambiguation, when those names are not otherwise commonly used. In the absence of a specific policy overriding WP:NCP, I suggest moving the Smirnov article back to its original location. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hqb! Sorry for a delayed response—I am not normally around during weekends.

Regarding your question, I would like to first point out that WP:NCP does not actually "actively discourage[] including additional names... for disambiguation [purposes]"; in fact, WP:NCP#Scope of this guideline explicitly states that this guideline does not deal with page names of disambiguation pages at all (see the last bullet in the bulleted list of that section). It does discourage the use of patronymics in titles overall, but that recommendation is actively being followed—we never include patronymics in titles if no ambiguity exists (I personally moved dozens of "first name+patronymic+last name" articles to their "first name+last name" equivalents).

Having clarified that, you did not find a rule of disambiguating Russian people by patronymic because it is not codified—from the perspective of editors of WP:RUSSIA (some of whom, I should mention, are native English speakers) the practice just makes sense and, as such, is being widely followed. I realize this is probably not the answer you were hoping for, but I do have the task codification of this rule buried somewhere on my to-do list—it's just that for the past several years of its active use no one really questioned it. Besides, "documenting actual good practices" is the first option to be considered when a new guideline is being designed or an existing one is being amended.

The main reason why English speakers are hesitant to accept patronymics as valid disambiguators is because they see them pretty much the same as Western middle names. This, however, is not the case. While a middle name is something parents give to a child as a "backup" and, apart from rarely being used, it is still the same as the first name, a patronymic is a different animal entirely. It is, in fact, kind of a cross breed of a first name and a last name. I won't go into the details, as the patronymic article explains them very well. What's more, while a person's middle name is not normally widely known or used in the West, patronymics are actively used in Russia (and, indeed, required in formal environments or when one needs to convey respect). A Russian person would never be ashamed of his/her patronymic because "it sounds weird"; not for the same reasons a Western person would be ashamed of his/her middle name anyway. It is true that Westerners treat patronymics just as they would treat middle names, but that does not make them equivalent.

There are also good reasons why a patronymic is a better disambiguator choice than, say, occupation. A patronymic is something that is documented, verifiable, and in use. An occupation, more often than not, can be expressed by multiple words. Look at Alexey Smirnov, which is currently on AfD. We have two different persons who are both pilots and Heroes of the Soviet Union—I just can't think of a better disambiguator than their patronymics in this case. Another person is an "officer" and also a Hero of the Soviet Union—even if you use "officer" as a disambiguator, it wouldn't be a great choice because the other two pilots, undoubtedly, were "officers" as well. Finally, we have a person who is an archaeologist and historian—both words could be used as a disambiguator, or we could use "scientist" or whatever. Problem is, and pardon the pun, the choice of a disambiguator here is a very ambigous process. One could argue that it is easily remedied by using a network of redirects, but this same argument can be used just the same if the article is unambiguosly located under a "first name+patronymic+last name" title.

Of course, not all cases are going to be as difficult as this Smirnov one, but the essence will still remain the same—there is no better disambiguator than patronymics in this case.

I hope I was able to provide an adequate explanation, but, if not, I'll be more than happy to continue to debate this further, if you still have concerns. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

{{coord missing}} in templates

Hello! Unofortunately, I've had to remove the transclusion of {{coord missing}} into {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}}, because it will, at the moment, break my categorization bots' current workflow.

However, I can see your motivation for doing this, and I'd like to support your efforts in a way that is compatible with the current {{coord missing}} project. I think I can help, not only by arranging for a mechanism that interoperates with the current mechanism, but will work with it, by providing support for a bot-driven effort to move article coordinates into these templates where possible. Could you contact me, please, so we can collaborate on this? -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anome! Thank you for your note and the offer. I am, however, wondering, if taking time to make the {{coord missing}} and {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}} work well together is worth the effort. There are 83 federal subjects in Russia, 81 of which will be using the federal subject infobox (the other two are federal cities and utilize an infobox of a different type). Seeing that so far I added {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}} only to the articles about the republics and krais, it does not seem terribly difficult to just go back add the darn coordinates, and then continue adding them as I go through the remaining articles about oblasts and autonomous entities (those are currently either using deprecated {{Infobox Russian federal subject}}, which should be replaced, or don't have infoboxes at all). Once that's done, there would remain no articles needing {{coord missing}}, so {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}} wouldn't need means to support it either.

If that's something that will work for your project, please let me know, and I'll start adding those coordinates ASAP. If there are some other problems with this approach I am not seeing, then let's discuss this further. Thanks again! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships

Will you be interested to join the discussion on topic of Ice Hockey World Championships and whether medal count for Russia/USSR and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia should be grouped together. The evidence I've provided from a reliable source in support of this argument is being rejected and there is seems to be a questionNeutral point of view. Please join in. Andreyx109 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andrey! Thank you for your offer, but I'm afraid I must decline it. Ice hockey (or, indeed, any team sports) is not something I am terribly interested in, or know much about. I have no good opinion on the medal count problem either—it seems there are pros and cons to either approach. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red October (disambiguation)

The problem with the 'see also' tag was purely one of formatting. It indents the 'see also' text the same amount as the list before it, so visually it runs into the list, which is a problem. Any suggestions on a better way to format this? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that as a problem, but I guess it is always possible to make it into a separate section (kind of like you did, only it should be titled "see also"). If that works for you, feel free to do it that way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, May 15, 2009 (UTC)

Any preference between User:RoySmith/style1 vs. User:RoySmith/style2? (I'll see your reply here) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Söyembikä of Kazan

Привет! Перенеси пожалуйста Söyembika of Kazan в Söyembikä of Kazan! --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:42, May 18, 2009 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished!

Hi. I thot (tho i don't recall any circumstances) that i recognized your ID in User talk:Jerzy's hx, when you rv'd an IP vand there, and was sure of it when i recognized your blimp. Thank you for that service to :en:WP; i say "No good deed goes unpunished!" bcz that one creates the occasion for me to ask you to consider another otherwise thankless task.
That was one of 2 IPs used by UNW1, who has not interacted, by so much as an edit summary, with any other user than me. They are a week-or-two-old user whom i expect imminently to block for a week, and subsequently to block indefinitely. My warnings and blocks have become very much a personal thing in their mind, and it think it's worth seeing whether another experienced user (admin or not) has any chance of breaking the fruitless cycle of communication between them and me before it reaches its logical conclusion.
I'm not asking you for anything more specific than opening communication if you choose to, and using your own judgment about what is best for WP: don't worry about appearing to diss me, or doing so, or undercutting my leverage on them. (Well, my nonexistent less-than-nuclear-option leverage!) I think i've been responsible with respect to them, but i could be wrong and in any case i respect that YMMV. Don't, on my account, hesitate to mention this communication.
In any case, perhaps explaining and/or reinforcing your reversion would be a suitable avenue of approach (which is my reason for approaching you rather than a random admin or other experienced user).
--Jerzy•t 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jerzy! I don't mind getting involved; the problem for me is the fact that I stumbled upon your talk page vandalism only because I forgot to take it off my watchlist after having finished a discussion with you (quite) a while ago. What this means is that I am unlikely to tell that some other IPs could be socks of this same user. Of course, if vandalism comes from this same IP or from some other IP targeting your user/talk page, I won't hesitate to get involved. I have also watchlisted UNW1's pages, so I'll have this post of yours in mind should the situation there develop further. You've put an awful lot of time into communicating with that fella; maybe a bit too much if you ask me :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, May 21, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and now i do remember our previous, "Yawzh". I'm not clear whether your concern is abt inability to recognize their future IPs, or not understanding what connects the two that i blocked to them. The initial evidence was what you reverted: the contact was a near-copy (down to sigs, probably down to time stamp) of what i put on their u-tk pg; it's reinforced by the nature of the other contrib(s) of that IP. The second IP is in the same 64K block of IP addresses (probably dialup or DSL), and IIRC the pattern of editing reinforces it. They seem to have acknowledged "a palpable hit" by complaining abt exposure, rather than offering a denial. (No need IMO for check-user.)
I was not hoping for enforcement aid, but another voice, saying, e.g.

Ya know, you do need to cooperate and communicate.

or

Yeah, J's a clumsy brute, but that doesn't make anything he's telling you false.

I think you've said "not now", and thanks for considering. Barring a road-to-Damascus event, i'll block for a week tomorrow, and (again in the absence of intervention or clear reform) indefinitely (i.e., presumably forever) after that week's 24-hour grace period. Which (i agree) is good enuf. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Russian federal city

Hello! I would much appreciate it if you could make a comment here. It's in regards to the new parameters you recently added to {{Infobox Russian federal city}}. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

Здравствуйте ещё раз. Я не очень понимаю — Вы куда-то торопитесь или как? К чему все эти откаты-переоткаты? Давайте, может быть, оставим пока как всё есть и тем временем обсудим все проблемы в деталях, как цивилизованные люди? Если Вам трудно вести разговор на английском, я с удовольствием продолжу его на русском. Я не против добавления новых параметров, я против добавления бессмысленных параметров, которые непонятно откуда взялись и непонятно что означают. Тут, например, что такое "mean"? По какой территории оно было рассчитано —сама Москва, территория субъекта Федерации "город Москва", территория агломерации? Население агломерации — почему выбрана цифра с citypopulation.de, а не откуда-то ещё? Вы в курсе, что population.de — это чей-то частный проект и к reliable sources не имеет никакого отношения и соответственно использоваться не должен? Зачем тащить в инфобокс всякий мусор?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:42, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Да нет проблем, можно и подождать. Но я все же не понимаю, почему вы называете эти параметры "бессмысленными"? Я считаю эту информацию важной, наличие котрой необходимо в статье именно в инфобоксе, поскольку обыватель, читающий статью, вряд ли будет выискивать какие-то подробности в тексте). Под агломерацией я понимаю Москву с прилегающими к ней крупными городами. На самом деле, если считать ее население по самым свежим данным, т.е население Москвы + Московской области, получится около 17 млн. Но официальных данные естественно нет, это же Россия)) Поэтому приходится пользоваться действительно непонятными ресурсами вроде citypopulation.de, которые дают информацию 5-летней давности, за неимением лучшего. В любом случае, все данные за 2009 год будут носить характер оригинального исследования, опять же потому что нет официальных данных. Но все же, я думаю что точность здесь не слишком важна, к тому же в информации по другим городам также используются данные citypopulation.de. В статье предлагаю оставить данные агломерации по citypopulation.de, все-таки они фигурируют во многих источниках, в том числе и на википедии, например http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Megacity. Да и вообще, любые данные можно поставить под сомнение. Что касается evelation, 156 м также вполне адекватная и соответствующая действительности высота, опять же ни по одному крупному городу вы не найдете точных данных, поскольку их в принципе невозможно будет вычислить с точностью более 10 м. Так что предлагаю оставить данное значение, или округлить его до 160 м. Texmon (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Любые данные действительно можно поставить под сомнение, это естественно. Именно поэтому Википедия (не знаю как русская, но английская это точно) строго ограничивает, какие источники данных являются приемлемыми, а какие нет (прочитайте WP:RS, там всё подробно объясняется). Тот же citypopulation.de — от того, что какие-то балбесы использовали его в других статьях вовсе не означает, что этот источник вдруг неожиданно стал приемлемым, это просто означает, что никто его не перепроверил, никто не поинтересовался, что же именно он из себя представляет. А представляет он из себя частный проект некоего Томаса Бринхоффа, который надёргал откуда мог самых разнообразных цифр и оформил их в виде сайта. Я вот уже полчаса смотрю на этот сайт и никак не могу выяснить, откуда именно он эти цифры набрал. Я уверен, что для Томаса это увлекательное хобби, и что цифры скорее всего взяты из более-менее надёжных источников, но поскольку под определение "reliable, third-party, published sources" его сайт никак не попадает, то и мы использовать его в качестве источника не должны.

Далее. Найти хороший источник, оценивающий население московской агломерации вовсе не так уж и трудно. Дело в том, что вовсе не так уж трудно найти десятки надёжных источников по этой тематике. Проблема заключается в том, что все эти источники будут давать разные цифры, поскольку методик расчёта (да и вообще определения площади) агломерации существует превеликое множество. Почитайте хотя бы статью ru:Московская агломерация, в ней даётся очень неплохой общий обзор этой проблемы. Вы же вырвали наугад первую попавшуюся цифру и вставили её в инфобокс. Я понимаю, если бы существовали разнообразные методики, и одна из них была бы самой распространённой — мы тогда её в инфобокс бы и вставили. Но это же не так! Нет такой методики! Соответственно, какую-бы цифру Вы не вставили в инфобокс, практическая её ценность будет стремиться к нулю. Представьте себя на месте читателя — в одной строчке написано население Москвы по результатам переписи 2002 г. — тут всё понятно — а в другой — население некоей неопределённой "агломерации" непонятно на какой год и непонятно чем конкретно отличающейся от цифры в первой строчке и непонятно как полученной. Чего мы добились?

Та же самая проблема и с высотой над уровнем моря. Во-первых, нафига оно надо? Есть координаты, кому надо, тот запустит тот же Google Earth и найдёт высоту самостоятельно. Во-вторых, по какой территории эта высота рассчитана? По какой методике? Вы можете доходчиво объяснить, что именно означает цифра "156 м"? Даже если можете, не Ваша это работа — Вам надо указать, откуда эта цифра взялась (где "откуда"="reliable source") и что именно она означает. Если не можете, не указывайте; не надо добавлять свои догадки; это original research, который в en_wiki не приветствуется. Если источников имеется несколько и цифры в них не совпадают, то это опять-таки знак того, что цифра в инфобоксе просто не принадлежит; подробности должны быть в тексте. Если кого-то сильно напрягает прокрутить до секции "Geography" и найти эту информацию, то это не наша проблема. Наша проблема — убедиться, что цифры, которые мы скармливаем читателям, достоверны, проверяемы, несут какой-то смысл, и являются бесспорными. Население Москвы по данным переписи (или по оценкам Росстата) этим запросам соответствует, а население неопределённой "агломерации" без указания года и с непонятной методикой — нет. Убедил?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

Насчет статьи ru:Московская агломерация вы не поверите - частично она написана мной)). Если сомнения - смотрите в истории Texmon и 84.23.51.132. Кстати сейчас привел в статье данные по населению Москвы за 1 марта 2009 года по данным официального сайта города http://www.mos.ru/wps/portal/WebContent?rubricId=15408. Так что данные переписи 2002 года уже не актуальны. по агломерации - можно привести население агломерации как население Москвы плюс городов, которые обозначены в ==Структура и состав Московской агломерации==. По поводу высоты, в статье я уже обозначил, что это высота ВВЦ, и привел ссылку на сайт Московского метеобюро http://www.hmn.ru:8101/index.php?index=50&value=27612, который официально определяет высоту этой станции как 156 метров над уровнем моря. Можно вычислить среднюю высоту как среднее между московскими метеостациями http://www.hmn.ru:8101/index.php?index=50&value=27612, проблема только в том, что на территории Москвы находится всего 2 из них. Texmon (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Сделал в статье всё, что успел, больше, к сожалению, сегодня возможности писать и общаться с вами нет, так как отключили инет и еще, увы, сессия, завтра зачёт, к которому нужно готовиться)) Так что, до свидания, спасибо за интересную беседу.Texmon (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Сами написали? Ну и зачем же я Вам тогда должен доказывать очевидное? Вы и сами знаете, что источников существует превеликое множество, и ни один из них не является "самым лучшим"; они просто все используют разные методики... Почему же Вы до сих пор считаете, что определение агломерации из секции "структура и состав..." является самым правильным, для меня до сих пор загадка. Ни у Вас, ни у меня, ни у кого ещё нет права указывать читателю, какое определение является самым правильным/удобным/whatever; это он должен сделать сам, ознакомившись с подробностями. Подробностям же этим в инфобоксе не место, для этого есть статья.

Что касается данных переписи, то они очень даже актуальны, поскольку являются единственными данными, позволяющими сравнивать населения разных городов/субъектов Федерации на один и тот же момент. Оценочные данные (Росстат) этого сделать не позволяют (хотя, если Вы предпочитаете пофигистский подход и качество энциклопедии для Вас пустой звук, то, конечно, можно сказать, что этой разницей можно пренебречь). Ну эту-то проблему решить просто — достаточно привести данные по населению по итогам переписи и отдельно по самой последней доступной оценке.

Наконец, что касается метеостанций, хочу ещё раз отметить, что "среднее между двумя метеостанциями" это самый что ни на есть махровый original research. Если у Вас есть источник, указывающий "mean elevation of Moscow" с описанием методики, как этот mean elevation был получен (пусть даже и усреднением высот станций), то милости прошу его указать. Как только Вы начинаете производить вычисления самостоятельно, Вы скатываетесь на original research, и это не есть правильно. Ну неужели это не понятно?

В любом случае, надеюсь продолжить этот разговор через несколько дней (в понедельник и возможно во вторник меня не будет); в качестве жеста доброй воли оставляю статьи о Москве, Питере, и шаблон в текущем бардаке (втайне надеясь, что кто-нибудь ещё обратит на них внимание). Вскоре напишу новый шаблон (этот я и так планировал переписать, ибо с ним уже и до этой дискуссии имелись проблемы помимо тех, которые Вы добавили), в котором все данные будут требовать источник, по типу {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}}.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, May 22, 2009 (UTC)

Только что осознал, насколько я не люблю мусорные данные — вот не удержался и сделал-таки {{Infobox Russian federal city2}} уже сегодня. Добавил его в статью о Петербурге; в Москве пока оставил старый (поскольку обещал). Давайте теперь начнём заново — Вы предложите новые параметры на Template talk:Infobox Russian federal city2, и мы с Вами их по очереди обсудим и по ходу дискуссии будем их добавлять/не добавлять/добавлять после модификации в новый шаблон. Если надо, привлечём третьих лиц для консультации, но ни добавлять параметры в новый шаблон, ни убирать их из старого пока не достигнем какого-либо консенсуса не будем. Как только покончим с обсуждением, добавим новый шаблон в статью о Москве. Пойдёт Вам такой компромисс? А то откатывать туда-сюда вовсе не продуктивно.

Я вернусь во вторник или среду (US Central Time); если у Вас не будет времени, то обсудим позже когда получится.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:29, May 22, 2009 (UTC) Извиняюсь за задержку; никак не могу выделить достаточно времени за один раз, чтобы написать нормальный ответ.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, May 28, 2009 (UTC)

Спасибо, посмотрел ваш шаблон, смотрится вполне прилично, но существенных отличий от старого не вижу). Есть правда недоработки стиля (что-то там накосячено с рамками), но, надеюсь, вы все исправите. Также думаю, что герб и флаг должны быть на самом верху, во-первых, так принято в русской википедии, а во-вторых просто лучше смотрится. Теперь по содержанию: с населением конечно получится не очень хорошо. Все-таки зачем приводить 2 раза данные по одному и тому же предмету, когда есть более новые. Тот, кто будет читать статью (а это, поверьте, весьма неосведомленные люди) просто запутаются. А чтобы была возможность сравнить регионы по переписи 2002, можно сделать Rank (2002 Census) или что-то вроде этого. По поводу высоты, можно привести несколько точек, для которых есть источники (с Питером проще - минимальная высота там соответствует уровню моря). Но лучше привести одну, чтобы у обывателя глаза на лоб не полезли от обилия информации)). Для этого и можно привести высоту опорной метеостанции, в любом случае их специально располагали так, чтобы они были представительны для для той местности, где находятся, значит их высота наиболее соответствует высоте окружающей территории, т.е. города. Для Питера кстати дается высота 6 м. Для агломерации можно сделать население региона (т.е Московской и Ленинградской области), написав Region of city или City region, которые будут ссылаться на соответствующую область. Вот цитата из статьи про Московскую агломерацию по этому поводу: "В настоящее время под Московской агломерацией в более широком масштабе подразумевается не только Москва с непосредственно примыкающими к ней населёнными пунктами, или Москва с двумя пригородными поясами, а Москва и вся Московская область (столичный регион)." Texmon (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Отвечу позже сегодня или завтра.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

Я считаю, что такой инфобокс должен включать данные и по городу, и по субъекту федерации (хотя только самые необходимые и однозначные). Потому что иначе будут недоразумения (уже были). Читатель привык видеть в инфобоксах других городов данные для города, а не для "федерального субъекта". Кстати, я давно уже предлагал сделать два поля для площади: площадь субъекта федерации (1439) и площадь "в черте города" (606). А иначе время от времени случается путаница (некоторые начинают недоумевать, как эти города получились такими большими по сравнению с крупнейшими городами мира, и исправляют данные – это уже было, и, кажется, не раз). Кроме того, поскольку плотность населения у нас вычисляется, а не указывается отдельно, тут могут получаться вообще фантастические, ничему не соответствующие и нигде не зафиксированные цифры, вроде населения субъекта в целом, деленного на площадь в черте города. Кажется, как раз прямо сейчас у нас такая ситуация с Петербургом (7,694/km² -- это именно оно). Даже если ошибочное значение плотности населения будет существовать в Википедии недолго, оно по нашей вине вполне может пойти гулять по интернету. Это желательно исправить. Colchicum (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за напоминание о проблеме с площадью — меня как раз глодало чувство, что я забыл о чём-то важном. Оказалось, вот о чём :) Обязательно добавлю.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

OK, should be fixed now. If you see anything else I have missed, please let me know.

Additionally, if you have any other input regarding this infobox re-design, it'd be great to hear it out. In particular, do you have an opinion regarding the elevation and agglomeration problems I outlined above (those which Texmon disagrees with?). We could certainly use another opinion... Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

Если что-то вообще добавлять, я бы добавил часовой пояс. Но вообще чем короче, тем лучше. Events, по-моему, нужно сократить до минимума. Точные сведения по высоте (не по средней, а по диапазону) найти легко, но добавлять не имеет смысла, а параметры аггломерации, как уже было сказано, невозможно измерить единственно верным образом. И вообще, статьи-то не про аггломерации. Честно говоря, мне не очень нравятся коллажи - сжатые картинки получились очень плохого качества. Но если очень нужны коллажи, то ладно, а вот ночные снимки в них - это не совсем удачная мысль, ничего характерного там не видно. Дневные гораздо информативнее. Colchicum (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо за комментарии. Я тоже думаю, что чем короче, тем лучше. С теми же Events явно получился перебор. Данные по предыдущим названиям города можно сделать отдельным полем (которое места будет занимать существенно меньше), а даты переноса столиц можно найти и в тексте. Сделаю так.

Часовой пояс добавить нетрудно; подумаю, куда его лучше прилепить, когда разберёмся с остальными проблемами.

Насчёт высоты, вернее, насчёт того, что данные по ней найти просто, я не совсем согласен. Если мы указываем две площади (субъекта и собственно города), то при указании диапазона надо также указывать, с какой из этих площадей он соотносится, а то получится как с Владивостоком (в некоторых источниках Орлиное Гнездо до сих пор указывается самой высокой точкой города, хотя город уже давно разросся и включил территорию с сопкой куда повыше). Не знаю наверняка, проблема ли это в случае с Питером, но при наличии двух площадей такой вопрос у вдумчивого читателя наверняка возникнет. Но в целом я согласен с тем, что ценность данных по высоте над уровнем моря в инфобоксе довольно маргинальна. Включать её только потому, что "а у других так" по-моему довольно глупо, а практической ценности я просто не вижу. То же самое и с агломерациями (плюс проблема с источниками).

Насчёт коллажей у меня устойчивого мнения нет. У Москвы, по-моему, коллаж вполне приличный, а если включать только одну фотографию, то это верный шаг к постоянным спорам. Ну не слайд-шоу же туда встраивать :) В документации к шаблону я указал "collage or skyline image"; конкретику оставляю за теми, кто интересуется доработкой собственно статьи, а не дизайном инфобоксов.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, May 27, 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Are you the main author of the article? As I'm looking the article is fine, but for a current FA I think it needs to incorporate the citing guidelines, using the templates provided for that. I'm thinking of placing it to a FA review, just to improve as it has been 3 years since it was listed. What do you think? I think it is a good article, not a FA. OboeCrack (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not the main author; I just happen to be the person who argued a lot about what the title should have been :) If my memory serves me, most work was done by Zscout370 (talk · contribs). Considering that the article got its FA star in 2006 (which is ancient history in wiki terms), a FA review might not be a bad idea after all—the FA guidelines got much stricter since then. In other words, I have nothing against listing it for a review (if that's what you are asking). If you do list it, you might want to drop a courtesy note at WT:RUSSIA as well—I personally am not all that interested in anthems, but I know some of the folks there would be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, May 26, 2009 (UTC)

Russian surnames and disambiguation

Hi there! Im sure your edits to surname pages (like Kotov) are good faith ones. But it's not at all helpful to turn surname pages (which are NOT dab pages!) into disambiguation pages, especially when terms you are adding are really of the secondary importance. With you kind permission, I've reverted your edits to Kotov and created Kotov (disambiguation). Would you please, in the future, in the cases when surname is unambiguiously the primary meaning of the term also do it the `proper' way, by creating separate dab page and not by violating surname page. Thank you. Henry Merrivale (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henry! Thank you for your feedback. In response, however, I would like to point out that it was you who neglected to set up a disambiguation page in the first place, opting instead for inclusion of the non-name entries in the "see also" section. I merely added one entry and re-formatted the page within this already faulty framework. Why you decided to give me crap about that is something that I frankly do not quite understand, but I am sure it was done with best intents :) No offfense is taken on my part (I indeed shouldn't have been this lazy and should have set things up properly).

That said, thank you for the fixes you've made. I am kind of not sure regarding your decision to make the surname page primary and to relegate the disambiguation page to Kotov (disambiguation) (instead of making "Kotov" a dab and moving the surnames to Kotov (surname), to which the said dab would link), but that's not really a big deal either.

Please let me know if you have anything further on this subject. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, May 28, 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there is really no reason to be angry, use offensive language and blame other people. Here is the sequence of the events: 1.I've created surname page, because surname is clearly the primary topic here (see WP:DAB for explanations and guidelines); 2.You've edited it into quasi-dab page, w/o actually converting it into dab page. And that is a very confusing thing to do!; 3.I've reverted your edit at the same time politely explaining my reasons here.

So,now to your points: 1. There was no neglect on my part. Creating dab page wasn't my intent. I was creating surname page. Why should I create dab page? 2. Format of surname page was (and is) faultless. Section see also was included because both terms directly relate to the individuals mentioned on the page. Kotov attack and asteroid are both named after chess player. 3. I din't give you crap, it's you who is giving me the lip (Excuse my pun!). Thank you. Henry Merrivale (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, I am not sure where exactly in my comment you saw angriness, offensive language, or blame-putting. Perhaps my sarcasm did not translate as smoothly as I intended to your side, for which I apologize. Regarding the matter at hand, I consider the issue closed. I could keep explaining the situation further until cows come home, but I have an uncomfortable feeling that would be interpreted as more anger/blame/offense, and the matter isn't really worth it. For what it is worth, I hold no grudge. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:57, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

give smbd crap? is not exactly a term of endearment, especially when used in non-idiomatic form like you've done. no language lessons intended. Henry Merrivale (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, first, I apologize for missing the above comment of yours, and second, I would like to assure you that while I did not mean what I said as endearement, I most certainly did not mean it as a straight-in-your-face offense either. In circles where I revolve, this phrase is used so routinely often that it is easy to forget that it can be perceived as offensive, especially when one cannot read the facial expression and the intonations of another. If it did offend you, I, once again, apologize. I hope we can close this matter now. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:09, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Listvyanka

Four Listvyankas in one oblast?!? Disambiguation nightmare, isn't it? Anyway, I was just reading Leonov's interview here. He says that his Listvyanka is quite old (Yermak age), located some 300 km NE of Kemerovo. Maybe that should narrow it down... Óðinn (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just checked Leonov's article on ru_wiki, and they say it's the one in Tisulsky District. I've made the corrections accordingly (a reference still would be nice, of course). I've also converted Listvyanka into a set index, and listed all four places in Kemerovo Oblast. And no, four is not a nightmare—it's when we have two (or more!) villages by the same name in the same oblast/district/selsoviet, that's when we need to get creative to distinguish between them :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:51, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here. [reply]

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia

Why exactly do you think the article should be deleted? Contrary to what Martintg said, it contains more material than either of the two other articles. It's also not only about Russians. There is still a lot that should be improved, but why delete the article instead of letting it develop? Offliner (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do not like to keep parrotting after someone else, but in this case I really don't have to add much to what Colchicum said—one cannot present both sides of an argument in a POV fork with a POV title. If you want to continue developing the article, there is nothing precluding you from moving it to your user space, balancing it to present both sides of the argument, and then moving it back to main space under a more appropriate title ("Human rights in Estonia" is certainly better than the current one). When I said "delete", what I really meant was "remove from mainspace", because in its current shape and form the article does not belong there. I do not object to the content of the article (it is well-referenced and certainly encyclopedic); I object to the way that content is spun and presented to the general audience. I hope this answers your question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, June 3, 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I have an argument with others on disambiguation. I want to add some useful information to ACE, NME and PMF, but other people always delete them. The link is here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#need_help_on_ACE_and_NME Could you please have a look? Thanks.--141.89.77.122 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of all people who could help you picked me? :) The reason I am amused is because you couldn't have possibly picked a person who is less qualified to help you. While I certainly sympathize with your cause, I've long learned that trying to add actually useful information to disambigs is a completely futile effort if there is even a slight chance that it does not meet some silly random WP:MOSDAB provision. Given my history with the MOSDAB crowd, they are going to shoot me on sight regardless of what I propose, even if it makes sense on some level, and in this particular case they'll just quarter me right after my first post. With that in mind, my only advise would be to drop this matter and wait out until the stubborn ilk of the MOSDAB dies out on its own and more reasonable people take over. Best of luck,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Korobeiniki

Thanks for the GFDL translation of "Korobeiniki"; what a great contribution to the project, under the circumstances!
--Jerzy•t 16:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a fifteen minute job, so no big deal, but hey, I'm glad that NPR folks liked the translation enough to use it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

GRP pro capita of Russia's regions

I'd like to make a wikitable out of this: [6] (if you know of newer numbers, let me know.) We already have a map of the 2006 numbers, but a table would be great because you can sort it and see which regions are the richest and which are the poorest. Do you have a script which could do the conversion or would you have time to write one? I'm trying to write one but it seems to be taking much longer than doing the conversion by hand :P Offliner (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about the script, I think I got it working after all: [7]. The names need still to be corrected and a rounding error fixed. Do you think we could insert this table in some article? Also, do you think the federal subject infobox could have a GRP pro capita entry? I think it would be very interesting and important info. Offliner (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a script for HTML table to wiki conversion, but for a table like this I found it easiest to just copy it to Excel and then run this excellent Excel-to-wiki conversion macro. You'll still need to do some follow-up cleanup, but all in all the script is nothing short of amazing.

The table itself, I think, could go to the economy of Russia article, unless you have a better place in mind. Regarding the infobox, technically, we could add a line with the GRP (the numbers are well-sourced and complete), but I am not sure if it isn't going to be too specialized. Perhaps we should run it by WP:RUSSIA to gather more opinions first? As you might have noticed, I am rather conservative when it comes to adding more parameters to infoboxes :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Nizhni Novgorod oblast --> Nizhny Novgorod oblast

Why? It's in The Constitution of Russia (http://kremlin.ru/eng/articles/ConstEng3.shtml). I think The Constitution is the most important source. nejron (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at WT:WikiProject Russia#Nizhny Novgorod oblast --> Nizhni Novgorod oblast. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:37, June 8, 2009 (UTC)

Paulownia tomentosa

Dear Ezhiki,

User:Brettastic has added an external link Buy Paulownia Trees to the page Paulownia tomentosa.

Is this opportune? Wikipedia does normally not add commercial hints to its pages. Please advise. --Réginald (To reply) 07:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Réginald! Linking to commercial websites is not exactly prohibited, but should only be done when no free alternative is available. In this case, the site provides fairly good pictures, yet we already have pictures in the article, plus the first link in the list (bioimages.vanderbilt.edu) leads to more pictures hosted on a website of a non-commercial entity. Thus, we have plenty of images to illustrate the subject, so linking to a commercial website is unnecessary. I have removed the link in question, as well as the other link leading to a tree nursery site. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, June 10, 2009 (UTC)

Leningrad Oblast districts

I chanced upon the article for one of the districts and it made me sad that it was a boring old stub. In my search to improve the article, I found the "Infobox Russian district" template and thought it might be an improvement to the article -make it look a bit more "official" looking instead of an ugly stub. I could find no info sources, so most of the boxes are empty. I was hoping they could be completed (by myself or others) once more info could be found. Even though putting the infobox on the page doesn't add any new info, I think it is helpful to visually locate the information wanted. For example, a person may want to know the population of each district in the oblast, they can quickly locate that information in the infobox on each page instead of having to read in paragraph inorder to find it. Isn't that the point of the infobox? I'm sorry if I did the articles disservice by not including every element of the template. I had hoped that the template worked like others I've used where if the information was empty, you'd end up with a smaller infobox instead of empty lines. I tried to improve the syntax in Tosnensky District, but I don't think it improved the page at all. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the articles. Kpstewart (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of infoboxes is actually to present an overview of the most important facts in the article, so for articles which are only a few lines long having an infobox is just redundant (even if an appropriate infobox exists). In something like Giaginsky District (which is still rather short), having an infobox makes sense, but for Tosnensky District it is definitely an overkill—one can get the facts from the prose just as quickly as from the infobox.

Anyhoo, the information to populate these boxes does exist, but it is in Russian. If you have no trouble with that, I can point you out to the appropriate sources (some are listed in the above-mentioned article about Giaginsky District), and you'll be able to have all the fun with these district articles you want :) That is, of course, providing that you want to work on these! I aint't gonna blame you if you don't wanna, but in that case it would probably be best to have the boxes removed. In this state they tend to attract more disinformation than genuine useful editing (sadly, I am talking from experience). Let me know what you want to do—like I said, I'd be happy to help you out. I could populate the boxes myself, but there was a reason why I didn't do it in the first place, and that reason is time constraints :( Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:39, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

Sure, give me some sources. My Russian is definitely in need of practice. It will give me something to do on those nights when insomnia hits me. Kpstewart (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on the second thought, never mind that offer. The sources I have are mostly Word files; if they are available online, it's a pain to find the right versions (especially if your Russian is only basic). The documents themselves are also written in that particularly horrible form of Russian legalese which you probably won't find all that fascinating to wade through. Still, if you want, I can send you an example document, and if it doesn't scare you off, I'll gladly send more (just shoot me an email first, because one can't attach files when initiating communications via wikimail).

The source for the districts population figures is available here (in Excel format).

Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:59, June 15, 2009 (UTC)

User:UDSS

I think it should be considered, if it were better to have this account outright blocked. By now, no useful contributions, just (on various talk pages) some Trotsky-inspired rant on evil Stalinists having robbed the good Bolsheviks of their communist label and misidentifying themselves as communists and so on. ~~The last edit was clearly vandalistic [8].~~ --Miacek (t) 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't outright block a user whose interactions I did not get a chance to observe over a reasonable amount of time and whose contributions are not obvious vandalism. Yesterday was the first time I stumbled upon this user's posting (on the LDPR talk page), and while I do see a definite pattern of his/her contributions, the actual number of edits s/he made, in my opinion, is far from the disruption threshold. If anything, the user demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is hardly a blockable offense (not without prior attempts to educate the user in these areas, anyway). However, if, based on your previous interactions with the user, you don't believe a content/policy-wise discussion with this user is going to lead anywhere, please escalate the matter to WP:ANI. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

Political groups during Vladimir Putin's presidency

I reorganized and expanded the article Political groups during Vladimir Putin's presidency. What is your opinion of those edits? Offliner (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure-wise, it's definitely an improvement over the previous version. Content-wise, I am not going to comment as I don't know this subject all that well.

Further improvements could include shortening section titles in the History section, formatting and weeding the references in the History section and below, and replacing or explaining the term "siloviki" in the lead, as most readers would have no idea what the word means (it should at the very least be linked to). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, June 17, 2009 (UTC)

re: Dmitry Shevchenko

Yes good catch! It must have been an accidental copy/paste from another tag page. I just searched him now on Google and all links pointing to him do not give a date when he died... which means it is all good hehe! Cheers!Calaka (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double-checking! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, June 19, 2009 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06/Forces of central subordination of the Russian Air Force

If you're feeling like a break from your normal round, I could use some help with the translations here. Don't bother if you're busy. Hope you're having a good weekend, Buckshot06(prof) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind helping you out with this, but I should admit that the military terminology is not something I am very comfortable translating (I am capable of translating it, but I can't guarantee the quality of the output). However, I could supply the links to the articles about the populated places, if that helps you any. I wish I could help with the airports as well, but I don't really have anything to look them up properly, so it's going to be hit-or-miss there. Let me know what you want me to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:21, June 22, 2009 (UTC)

Please do help me with the translation. After that we can figure out the links. Thanks Buckshot06(prof) 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks very much for the start. Please don't bother with the aircraft types - I have enough Cyrillic to translate those, and by now I can practically read them anyway. I can (slowly) cope with everything except the Склады, базы хранения и ремонта, авиаремонтные заводы section, so that's where your help would be most appreciated. Thanks again Buckshot06(prof) 10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated the portion you requested, but I want to once more re-emphasize that I wasn't very comfortable with the quality of my translation—it felt as if I was guessing, rather than knowledgeably translating, way too often. I hope the translation helps you get the idea of what all those facilities are, so you could then copy-edit it to conform with the established English military terminology. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, June 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hello Russian speaking man

Hey. I started Ýolöten a while back and have been expanding it. I wondered if you could find the Russian for it and if possible link to the article on Russian wikipedia or on the Great Soviet Encyclopedia site. Any population figures etc. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Иолотань or Ёлётен Colchicum (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any idea what Говурдак is. Can't find a settlement named "Govurdak". It must be a major city as it has 64,000. Does it refer to modern Bereket (formally Gazanjyk)? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sure, of the two requests the fun and easy one has already been taken care of, so I get stuck with the one that's a pain in the ass to find! :)

Anyway, I'll try. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't really have any high-quality sources on Turkmenistan, so the bits that follow are basically the dregs I scrounged around from the sources which are not really citable.

To the point now. Russian Wikipedia does have an article on Говурдак, placing it at 37°48′N 66°03′E / 37.800°N 66.050°E in Lebap Province. "Govurdak", or "Govurdag" rather, seems to be the Turkmen dialect name, meaning "sulphuric mountain" ("govur" is "sulphur" and "dag" is "mountain"). Russian occupants, of course, had to butcher the name, so in Soviet times the place was known as Гаурдак (Gaurdak). Incidentally, that's the name under which the article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is located.

One thing that's missing from the Russian Wikipedia is the fact that the town was renamed in (or around) 2002. Its new name seems to be Магданлы (Magdanly—note, however, that this article points to a different province, but that's your problem :)). It definitely has nothing to do with Bereket, which is a different place entirely.

Other interesting facts about the place I've found are that it was founded in 1947 (looks like it was an urban-type settlement from the very start), and that as of 1949 it was in jurisdiction of Charshanginsky District of Chardzhou Oblast.

Hopefully this should be enough to continue your search! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, June 24, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate from here or use some Russian sources? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 07:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't get to it today, I'll try finding time next week. Will that work for you?

Also, I forgot to ask—what did you revert yourself on Magdanly for? The province, at least, is definitely wrong (should be Lebap, which is what the navbox at the bottom shows anyway), and the rest I saw no problem with either.

And, oh, welcome back! I'm glad folks were able to knock some sense into you after all :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:58, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

Hokay thanks! I got confused over which was which with Turkmenistan due to the provinces! If you spot an error please change it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that for me this really isn't an exciting topic to write about, so, since I see that you only wanted me to work on it to address the unreferenced BLP concern, I copyedited the article a bit and provided a link to his bio on the official website of the Ministry. That should be enough as far as formalities go; I'm going to leave shaping the actual article to Mr. Shchyogolev's numerous fan base.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Height template

If I read the history right, you made the last substantial edits to Template:Height, which may mean you have a chance at understanding the logic in the template.

It produces less than optimal results for 1.52 and 1.82 meters, respectively:

1.52 m (5 ft 0 in)
1.82 m (6 ft 0 in)

I'm not terribly surprised that this error occurred, but I don't see how to fix the template. Any chance you could, or point me to someone who might be able to help?--SPhilbrick T 12:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite recall what the problem exactly was, but I do remember it was not easy to fix without some major re-design. To bypass this bug, you can either specify the fractions:

{{height|m=1.52|frac=16}}→1.52 m (4 ft 1113⁄16 in)

{{height|m=1.82|frac=16}}→1.82 m (5 ft 115⁄8 in)

or use {{convert}} or {{m to ft in}} instead of {{height}}. You can also drop a note at template talk:Convert asking to re-examine and possibly re-design the {{height}} template. When I was working on it, {{convert}} did not support conversion to vulgar fractions; I think it does now, so re-writing the template should be a cinch to the conversion templates-writing mavens. If for some reason they can't/don't want to help, please let me know and I'll take another look at this template myself. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:36, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

I've found in the past that it is sometimes helpful to explain what you are really trying to do, rather than narrowly describe the problem, as sometimes the larger issue is easier to resolve than the narrowly stated one.

That almost turned out to be the case here. Let me explain, and if you can help, or point me in the right direction, I'll be grateful.

Issue - rosters of athletes are often displayed in a table, including, player number, name, height and other information. I think it would be valuable to users to make those tables sortable, and I have been working to do that. Heights expressed in English units are problematic. My first solution was to embed a hidden zero next to single digit inches. It works, but it's kludgy, and not easy to write in a macro to fix a large number of such instances.

Then I realize if I converted heights to meters, they would sort correctly. So I wanted the value converted to meters, but displayed as English (optionally in both). The Height template almost works, except it messes up for some values.

You suggested looking at Convert. Almost perfect - it even has a parameter to create a hidden sort value! Exactly what I'm looking for - except… Except that when it takes English units as input, it uses only the first value. Precisely, utterly useless. In fact, I'm struggling to think of an example where you would use that option. If you start with metric as input, the output isn't sortable, but the input already is sortable, so there's no need to use the option. If you use English as input, the output is sortable, but the option uses the unsortable input. If that option could be changes it would be very useful. On the chance that there is some use or the option I haven't understood, obviously the template shouldn't just change to use output, but ass a parameter to allow the user to specify that the sortkey is generated from the output.--SPhilbrick T 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help you with {{convert}}, but I was not involved with its development and have only a very general idea of how it works. I see you have already requested help at that template's talk page; hopefully the folks there will be able to help. If they don't, let me know, and I'll try to do something about {{m to ft in}} (which is the template relied on by {{height}}, which is why they both have the same bug with displaying "12 inches"). Sorry for not being of much help with this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Thanks for clearing up the meaning of the в гробу, я всех вижу phrase. There is one other outstanding puzzle in this case, and your thoughts would be appreciated. The story behind the murder of Sergei Yatzenko is in the article, and at 4:03 in the video, it is possible (stressed, as this is not certain) that Yatzenko speaks. There is audio of this section of the video here (no graphic content, audio only). Suggestions for this have been "Oh my God" or "о парни нахуй" ("oh guys, fuck"). Whatever it is, it is muffled and hard to decipher, like much of the audio in the recording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "нахуй" part is pretty clear—I'm pretty sure that's what it is. What precedes it, however, beats me (I listened a dozen or so times). I guess it could be "о парни", but I really doubt that's what it actually is. The word "парень" is kind of on a bookish side, and while it is not uncommon to hear a forty-something year old or an older person call someone in his thirties, twenties, or late teens "парень", among those in their thirties, twenties, or late teens the word is hardly ever used. "Пацан" or "мужик" would be a much more natural choice.

If I had to make a wild guess as to what was said in the clip, I would go with something like "опа(на) нахуй". "Опа" or "опана" is not really a word; it's an interjection which you probably won't find in any dictionary. What it would normally express is surprise that something mildly unexpected has happened. The expletive portion following it would emphasize the surprise.

Of course, this is pure original research. It's kind of hard to understand what is going on in the clip without seeing the action. If you could post the video (say, ten seconds prior to this phrase and maybe five or ten seconds after), perhaps it would be more helpful (and yes, I understand this may turn out to be very graphic). An extended audio version might be useful, too, so let's try that if it's easier for you to cut out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:55, June 30, 2009 (UTC)

This case is currently at the appeal stage. The defence has insisted that the video evidence is wrong in some way, although it was accepted as genuine at the trial.[9][10] The Yatzenko video was the most controversial piece of evidence.[11] The dialogue in this video is hard to decipher, and consists mostly of swearing and laughing at the victim's suffering. Here are some non-graphic stills from it, showing Igor Suprunyuck: [12][13]. The "Oh!" exclamation at 4:03 may be Yatzenko, but this is hard to tell, even while watching the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the audio track of the Yatzenko video as presented in court on October 29 2008.[14] Apart from the swearing, the main things of note in the audio are (possibly) the voice of Yatzenko at 4:03 and a train/factory whistle at 5:12. See also [15]. When Suprunyuck and Sayenko denied that they were in the videos and photographs, "Столь явная ложь вывела из равновесия даже невозмутимого судью Ивана Сенченко. "Вы думаете, вас слепые судят? - не выдержал он."[16]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listened to the portion around 4:03, and am almost completely sure that the phrase in question is "опанах", which is a common colloquial contraction of what I suggested yesterday. You still might want to get a second opinion, though, because, as you pointed out, this wasn't exactly easy to hear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was very kind of you. The real mystery (and one that may never be solved) is whether the "опанах" is Yatzenko's voice. It does not seem to be either Suprunyuck or Sayenko, one of whom says the "(muffled) нахуй" phrase immediately afterwards. At 3:52, Yatzenko moves his right arm, prompting the attackers to express surprise that he is still alive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the meaning of the phrase and the intonation with which it was said, I would highly doubt that was Yatsenko...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, July 1, 2009 (UTC)

Restore category

Hey Ezhiki, any chance you can restore Category:Companies listed on the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange to the state it was in before it was, unexplainedly, deleted last year. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Является переводом шаблона ru:Реки и каналы Санкт-Петербурга. Если найдёшь время, посмотри названия статей в соответствии с правилами. Спасибо.--Andrey! 08:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Вдогонку ещё и {{Placename toponym Ligovo}}, если можно.--Andrey! 08:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Не срочно.--Andrey! 08:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Как только расплююсь со своим списком наблюдения (запустил за время праздников), так сразу же пройдусь по этим шаблонам. В шаблоне с реками и каналами, кстати, крестики что обозначают?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:15, July 6, 2009 (UTC)

Что касается транслитерации, то я по обоим шаблонам прошёлся. Также поправил кое-где ссылки, где надо было заменить строчные буквы на заглавные (river→River; pond→Pond, и т.п.), но поскольку в этой области я со всеми правилами не знаком, то заменил только те, в которых был уверен.

Также один вопрос — во втором шаблоне присутствуют две станции метро: Ligovo subway station и Ligovsky Prospekt (Saint Petersburg Metro). Вторую я знаю, а вот что имелось в виду под первой, не очень уверен. В статьях о питерском метро такая станция не упоминается. Можно прояснить? Спасибо!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:02, July 6, 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Avtozavodsky City District

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Avtozavodsky City District. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the page did not meet CSD G8 under which it had been nominated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, July 6, 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; if you feel that the page should be retained, then fine, leave it in. I point out that it consists solely of a disambig page leading to two redlinks. Do you expect these articles to be created? Because otherwise it is difficult to justify the retention of the article. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony! The tag has actually been already removed by someone else. In response to your question, though: I would never create a page like that if I do not intend to make the links blue later on. Problem is, considering the scope of the project I am working on, "later on" often translates into "much, much later on", but that still doesn't mean that the red (and, I should point out, WP:DABRL-compliant) links have no use to either readers or editors. Anyway, I appreciate you taking a minute to answer this. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:02, July 7, 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment; and compiance was never an issue. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Avtozavodsky City District

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Guy0307 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your lucky page ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know! I swear, if it's voted down to be deleted by folks who don't know the difference between a set and a dab, I'll write both bloody articles right there! Then let them sit there for several years until I can get to them properly. Thanks for your support, by the way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, July 8, 2009 (UTC)

He he. No problem about the !vote. Anyway, seems like the decision's going to be keep here... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some new locator maps

Just so you know we have a few new maps. Could you ensure the places within these oblasts display the new regional maps:

Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, these are the ones I myself asked User:Obersachse to transfer to en a couple days ago. I have already integrated them with the city infobox and they show up nicely—see, for example, Novosibirsk. At any rate, thanks for the note; much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 11:55, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've set the photograph about 50px bigger in the template though so it is exactly in alignment with the regional maps. The national locator is OK smaller in the midle but it gives a better balance that way me thinks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the white margins this produced, but I don't care all that much about them either. The infobox is due to re-design anyway :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:03, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

A re-design you say. ANy ideas? Maybe we could remove the block titled green sections and move it to the side as standard and remove the colour or something. I think it could look more condensed using the space that it does already perhaps Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been thinking about the re-design for about a year now. The way I work, it could be another year or so until the re-designed template actually materializes :)

Making the new template more condensed is definitely one of the ideas (I'm thinking of cutting the whole Events section out and replacing it with a two-liner for previous names—that's the information the section mostly contains anyway—and the rest is too much detail and belongs in the article). Moving stuff to the side, not so much. The template needs to be consistent with the rest of the Russia-related templates, so the color/tiles aren't going away. Besides, with the Events section gone, the length of the template isn't going to be much different from a similar template not using tiles/color. All in all, however, if you have any additional ideas, I'm listening.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, July 10, 2009 (UTC)

Chukotka

That seems a much better way to go about things. I think the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug would benefit from a template like Primorsky Krai, as there are quite a few little settlements that are by definition excluded from a simple towns / cities list, which makes things very difficult for the casual browser. Do I assume correctly that were I to produce a new template box for all Chukotkan settlements split by type that it would replace the current box as opposed to being placed alongside it? I dont want to delete anything in error. Fenix down (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the articles it would replace the existing one (which, once the new template is in place, can be turned into a redirect—cf. Template:Cities and towns in Primorsky Krai). If the background story interests you, the existing one is a part of a set of similar templates which were produced for each federal subject quite a while ago. The reasoning for inclusion of only cities/towns was, at the time, that most of the urban-type settlement and district links would be red. A navigational template with a sea of red links, as you understand, hardly assists in navigation :)

While for the most federal subjects this is still true, there are many more articles about the urban-type settlements now than when the templates were created. For Chukotka, however, since it is such a sparsely populated region, this is less of a concern. Eight districts, three towns, and thirteen urban-type settlements are hardly going to be overwhelming.

Anyway, if you need help with developing the template, please let me know; I'll be happy to assist. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, July 14, 2009 (UTC)

I have produced a first draft "Settlements of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug" and have added it to all cities, towns, urban-type settlements and rural settlements I could find. I have added in all the urban-type settlements from the administrative divisions of Chukotka article which has produced a few red links (which I'll have to write later!). For the rural settlements, as I could only find a map in the Petit Fute guide which had what could be called a list, I only added in those which already had articles as I felt that too many red links in the box at the start might prove counter-productive.

Your feedback would be most appreciated. Also I have only been able to get the box to show one of the images of the coat of arms and flag of Chukotka on the right hand side. I can get one on each side but it doesnt look right, is there anyway to get to thumbnail images on the right hand side of the same box? Thanks Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for a first draft it looks quite good! I do have a few comments, however.

First off, for consistency sake, I would recommend renaming the template to {{Chukotka Autonomous Okrug}} and to include the CAO's districts. This will be in line with the similar {{Primorsky Krai}} template—hopefully, as articles get written, we'll be able to replace the city/town templates with their full administrative divisions counterparts.

Second, I see you were trying to include the rural localities into the template. I would strongly advise against that. There are 44 rural localities ("rural settlement", by the way, is a term we reserve for a municipal formation type) in CAO as of 2009, and that's actually a pretty low number compared to other federal subjects (only Nenets AO and Ingushetia have fewer rural localities than that). Even so, if you list every single one of them, the template is going to be unnecessarily overloaded even if they are all blue. It's important to remember here that these templates are not intended to hold everything but the kitchen sink; they should only list the most high-profile stuff (urban-type settlement level is a fairly good threshold) and be consistent within themselves (if some items are included but not the others, it should be easy to figure out why exactly those others were excluded).

Finally, with the image, one (a flag or a coat of arms) is enough. It's purely decorative (and probably redundant) anyway.

Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:08, July 20, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll take it on board. Are you basically saying that I should take out the rural localities and replace that section with the various districts? Is there any way to group rural localities together, even though many of the articles are short, I find them quite intetresting and it seems to me that they are somewhat lost and difficult to get to unless one knows precisely where to look. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much. Rural localities are interesting (I'll be the first person to tell that to anyone who asks :)), but there are just way too many of them for an average federal subject to fit comfortably on a template like this one (even a sparsely populated Murmansk Oblast already has over a hundred of them, and that oblast is in the bottom ten of the list). In the past, the solution was to list them on the pages of the corresponding districts (which really is the only logical way to group them)—and if we have districts on the templates, finding their rural localities is going to be just a click away. Of course, this would require writing articles about the districts, but I can help you with that, if you want.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, July 21, 2009 (UTC)

I see your reasoning with regards to the rural locailities. Before I make any changes to the template, I was wondering whether you could clear something up. In the article I started on Mys Shmidta, I reference the german wikipedia page which states that the Schmidtovsky district and the Iultinsky were merged in June 2008 to form the Wostotschny district. However, I have since noted that this comment is unreferenced, and I cannot find anything to support it in english on the web. On the other hand, the sources I have found that describe the regional make up of Chukotka do not seem massively up to date. Any input you have would be welcomed before I start, so I'm not making changes that will just have to be corrected themselves. Also, I assume I should refer to them as districts no raions, but should I anglicise the names so Schmidtovsky Raion becomes Schmidt District? Finally, if there are any areas you have particularl expertise in do let me know and I will leave them for you to wirte if you want. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, yes, I can help you with that. First, however, I need to clarify that when speaking of Russian districts, one should distinguish between the administrative districts and the municipal districts. Not to bore you with the details, the main difference is roughly that the former are set by the government of the federal subject, while the latter are formed based on the decisions of the local self-government. The process and setup has its peculiarities from one federal subject to another, so I'll just focus on Chukotka from here on.

As a side note, I should also point out that in English Wikipedia articles are created about the administrative divisions, and the municipal divisions are mentioned in those articles. Russian Wikipedia takes the opposite approach (the majority of their articles are about municipal units). Just something to keep in mind when translating articles between Wikipedias.

Anyway, back to Chukotka. As in many other federal subjects, the borders of the municipal districts of Chukotka match the borders of the administrative districts exactly, although, legally, it does not have to be that way. In other words, it is entirely possible to have municipal districts which are completely different from the administrative districts; in practice this is not usually done because when the districts match, it is easier to coordinate the state (=federal subject's) matters with the local matters.

In July 2008, Iultinsky and Shmidtovsky Municipal Districts of CAO were merged to form Vostochny Municipal District, and Anadyrsky and Beringovsky Municipal Districts were merged to form Tsentralny Municipal Districts. Note, however (and I can't emphasize this enough), that only municipal districts were merged; the administrative districts remained in place as before (so we would still have articles about all four, while the Russian Wikipedia would have only two).

The reason why you won't find any mention of Vostochny or Tsentralny Municipal Districts anywhere is because the law mandating the merge was amended in October 2008—as a result of the amendment, the names "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were discarded and replaced, correspondingly, with "Iultinsky" and "Anadyrsky". So, as of today, CAO has eight administrative districts (Anadyrsky, Beringovsky, Bilibinsky, Chaunsky, Chukotsky, Iultinsky, Providensky, and Shmidtovsky), but only six municipal districts (Anadyrsky, Bilibinsky, Chaunsky, Chukotsky, Iultinsky, and Providensky). Iultinsky Municipal District is formed on the territories of Iultinsky and Shmidtovsky Administrative Districts, and Anadyrsky Municipal District is formed on the territories of Anadyrsky and Beringovsky Administrative Districts.

The German Wikipedian probably caught the July change, but not the October's, hence the problem.

Regarding your other questions: we do not anglicize the district names, we romanize them (so, it's "Shmidtovsky", not "Shmidt")—the reason is that within the romanization guidelines you can get only one variant, whereas with anglicization numerous variants are possible, and it is often unclear which one should be used ("Shmidt"? "Schmidt"? how should the names of other districts be anglicized?). There is no way to establish an unambiguous guideline if you go the anglicization route.

As for my expertise, while researching Russian administrative divisions and their history is only a hobby of mine (I am by no means a professional in this area), within the confines of that topic I know quite a bit about everything. However, as far as editing is concerned, don't worry about me at all—while (within this topic) I can write an article about pretty much anything, at this point I am focusing mostly on the organization (i.e, on having clear and logical naming guidelines in place, making sure the articles are interlinked properly, ensuring that the terminology is used consistently across all articles, etc.). It doesn't mean I wouldn't write something when asked to, but please don't limit your content-creating efforts on my account. I add each and every new article to my to-do list, and while it usually takes me a while to get back to review them (to do basic fact-checking, to make sure everything is up-to-date, to ensure the terminology usage is correct and consistent), I don't have a habit of ignoring them. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, July 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, that has cleared a lot up in my mind, particularly with regards to how "Shmidt" should be romanised. From what you have said I assume the template box should not have both the administrative and municipal districts in the section below urban-type settlements and where a municipal district contains two administrative districts note this in the administrative district article (saying something like admin. district X forms municipal district A along with admin district Y) rather than write a new article?

I've put at least something down for each of the urban type settlements so I think it would be best for me to tackle the administrative districts next so that those articles might be populated with links to relevant rural localities.

One further thing please, is it preferable to refer to districts as such or Raion in articles. I'm not sure and it has occurred to me that I have not been using one or the other consistently in the articles I have drafted so far. thanks for all your assistance, its a big help in getting my head round this subject. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I could help. I am also very glad that someone else took interest in the same topic I am working on—this doesn't happen very often :) Considering how poorly this subject is covered in en_wiki, every little bit helps a lot. Thank you for that.

To answer your questions: the template box should only list administrative, not municipal, divisions, because this is how the information is structured in the English Wikipedia. Of course, the municipal divisions should be mentioned in the articles about corresponding administrative divisions (so, the Iultinsky District article should say something to this effect→"Iultinsky District is an administrative district of CAO... Municipally, it is incorporated with Shmidtovsky District to form Iultinsky Municipal District, which covers the territories of both administrative districts..."

As for how the districts should be referred to, while "raion" is technically correct, for consistency (and out of respect to English speakers most of whom would have no clue what a "raion" is), we use "district", which, in this case, is a very good English equivalent. In many situations (e.g., "oblast" vs. "province", "krai" vs. "territory"), translating a term can be ambiguous and confusing, but with "raions" we are in luck—we are not adding to confusion elsewhere by using a translated term.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, July 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks foryour answers to previous questions, I was wondering whether I could ask a couple more, please?

Firstly, now I am looking at making a start on the rural localities in Chukotka, was wondering how best they could be represented in their respective district articles. So far, I have just added them as See Also as I have not been able to find any other pages concerning districts that goes into that much detail. I'm not going to do a template box given what you've said previously, I dont want to set an unwiledy precendent, but is it acceptable to have sub-headings in a district article listing the various towns / urban type settlements / rural localities. As an aside to this, I assume I need not update the administrative divisions of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug page, as those types of pages only seem to go down to urban-type settlement?

Secondly, how should I best refer to settlements below urban-type? I have just been referring to them as rural localities, but is it ok to call them all villages / selo? I am confused becasue some from my research seem to be old selsovets or the remains of Kolkhozs.

Thirdly, how can I reference censuses within a table? I have tried doing this on the demographic evolution table I did for theMys Shmidta article, but when I put in the ru-census template, nothing happens and I want to try to avoid multiple citations of the same source to try to tidy my refs up a bit.

Finally (!), I noted a couple of people have added infoboxes to some of the articles I have created. That's not a problem, I was just wondering to what level one should go with these? Should all urban type settlements have them, or just those that are administrative centres? I assume there is no need for rural localities to have any?

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But of course you are welcome to ask as many questions as you need! If/when I don't know/don't have time, I'll let you know that right away :)

With rural localities, the idea is to have them listed in corresponding district articles. As an example, see Giaginsky District, but if you have a better idea how to lay them out, you are more than welcome to try it out. I was using Adygea districts as pilots for this kind of work, but those are still in pilot phase and can be improved. The grouping of rural localities that makes most sense is by selsoviets, but since neither Adygea nor Chukotka have them any longer, the next best thing is to use municipal rural settlements (Giaginsky District is done that way).

Administrative divisions of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug does indeed not to be updated—even though it's possible to jam all rural localities on one page for Chukotka, for most other federal subjects such an approach would simply overwhelm the list.

As for how to refer to the rural localities, for Chukotka it is rather simple, as they all have the same designation (selo). This is not the case for most other federal subjects, mind you. In general, when it comes to selos, in the lede we refer to them as follows: "a village (selo) of Foo"; and after that it's OK to refer to them just as "villages". As an example, you can use Galyonki.

Regarding the Censuses, the {{ru-census2002}} and {{su-census1989}} templates are named, accordingly, "Census2002" and "Census1989". The {{ru-census}} wrapper retains those names as well. So, once you used any of these templates, you can refer back to them by using <ref name="Census2002" /> and <ref name="Census1989" /> after any other statement that needs to be referenced back to those censuses. I should probably note this somewhere in the template docs. If still you need examples on how this works, let me know, I'll create a test diff for you. It's easier done than explained :)

The infoboxes that had been added shouldn't have been. Presently, we only have an infobox for cities/towns; adding it to the articles about urban-type settlements and rural localities makes no sense whatsoever. I'll be cleaning those out (by offloading useful data from the infobox to the article's text) when I get to the articles in question. Eventually, proper infoboxes for urban-type settlements and rural localities will be created, but so far the consensus on WP:RUSSIA has been that we don't yet need them.

Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

That's very useful, thanks. Looking at the Giaginsky District, it indicates that each municipal district is then divided into rural divisions, with a headquarters and a number of Selos / selsovets under its jurisdiction, if I read it right. Does Chukotka work in the same way? I was under the impression that the rural villages operated on their own under ther auspices of the municipal district, given their sparsity. I cant find anything on further administrative divisions below municipal district for Chukotka. If so, I'm thinking a seperate box might be overkill and that sections listing the towns / u-t okrugs / villages and maybe a very brief geographical location description might be the clearest way to explain things.

One other thing now municipal districts are on my mind again (!), do you have a citation I could use for the changing of the names of Vostochny and Tsentralny back to Anadyrsky and Iultinsky as I note they still use the pre-october 2008 names in the russian wikipedia. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision of municipal districts into urban okrugs/urban settlements/rural settlements is federally mandated, although the process of partitioning is left to the federal subjects (although it should be carried out within the federal law guidelines). You are, however, right to point out that the rural localities in Chukotka are located sparsely, so in order to meet the federal law requirements, each of those villages is incorporated as a rural settlement (bearing the same name as the village itself). Exceptions are as follows: Tavayvaam is administratively subordinated to Anadyr and is municipally a part of Anadyr Urban Okrug; Apapelgino is administratively subordinated to Pevek and is municipally a part of Pevek Urban Settlement; there are also five settlements I forgot about in my previous post. Note these are not urban-type settlements, but rather settlements of rural type, which are considered to be rural localities just as the villages (selos) are. Those five settlements are Otrozhny (Anadyrsky District); Vesenny and Dalny (Bilibinsky District); Bystry and Yuzhny (Chaunsky District). Neither of the five is municipally incorporated; all are considered to be inter-settlement territories. The remaining thirty-seven villages (selos) are all incorporated as rural settlements in corresponding municipal districts.

Regarding Vostochny and Tsentralny Municipal Districts, there was actually no document explicitly renaming them back to Anadyrsky and Iultinsky. Here's what happened: on May 30, 2008, the laws merging the municipal districts were passed. In those laws, the new (merged) districts were referred to as Vostochny and Tsentralny. On October 23, however, these laws were amended—in effect, all mentions of "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were purged and replaced with "Anadyrsky" and "Iultinsky". Now, the important thing to remember here is that every geographical renaming in Russia (including naming of newly formed municipal entities) requires approval on the federal level. No request for approval was submitted with the May 30 law, so "Vostochny" and "Tsentralny" were never officially names of the new municipal districts. My guess (and it's pure speculation!) is that the bureaucrats in Chukotka didn't want any hassle with the approval of new names, so they simply amended the law to use names that already existed (which does not require federal approval). With all this in mind, I don't think that "Vostochny"/"Tsentralny" names are even worth mentioning, as they never had an official status of any sort. Isn't Russia's bureaucracy machine fascinating? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Why did you revert the Torgo page to the last state? What I wrote was factually accurate, and considering the podcaster in question has upwards of 2,000 listeners, at least 500 of which are dedicated enough to tune in to a live show at 1:00 GMT, there is a very good likelihood that someone will try and look him up. There's no reason that that link shouldn't be there on the Disambiguation page.

Admittedly, I wasn't logged in at the time I added that, but just because it's from an IP address, doesn't mean it's not a valid contribution.

I don't want it to turn into an edit war, so please reinstate the newer version of the page. I'm not surprised so many articles are stubs when valid contributions are immediately reverted.

As I know you're logged in, I'd appreciate a response very soon.

ShmenonPie - You wanna slice of me? (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! There are actually two reasons for that revert. First, disambiguation pages, being purely navigational (not informational) constructs, are subject to a number of rather rigid criteria, which you can familiarize yourself with here. One of those criteria is WP:DABRL, which states that a red-linked entry can be included on a disambig page if and only if the following two conditions are met:

the description of the entry contains a blue link, and an article at that link explicitly mentions that entry in the text;
the red link has at least one incoming backlink pointing to it.

Neither of these two conditions was met for the podcaster entry you added.

Another issue is notability. Based on what I was able to find, and now also on the information you supplied above, I do not believe this person passes the notability test. How many people tune in to listen to his podcast is not really relevant here; what matters is whether this person received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject matter.

I admit I might be wrong about the notability bit—you, after all, seem to know about this person a lot more than I ever would want to, so if you believe that his notability is easy to establish, you are welcome to create a (referenced) article and to see it through if someone nominates it for deletion because of the notability concerns. Once the article is in place, there is no problem with re-adding a link to it to the disambiguation page as well, because the disambig constraints are only of technical, not editorial, nature. Hope this helps. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, July 15, 2009 (UTC)

Questions about categories

I need some help on categories.

If I add an article to the category "Engineering companies of Russia", for example, should I also add it to the main category "Companies of Russia" as well?
Is there a category such as "Companies based in..." for all Russian federal subjects? If yes, where can I find them? If not, should they be created?
Would it make sense to create categories "Companies based in..." for all major cities as well, if they don't exist yet?
If I want to create a new category such as "Satellite manufacturers of Russia", who should I ask for permission? I'd also like to create something like "Companies involved in the Russian space program" (if it doesn't exist yet) because I think it's inconvenient to have such companies in the general "Aerospace companies of Russia" because I think the space companies are very special. How should I proceed?

Thanks for helping. Offliner (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no need to ask anyone's permission to create a category; just be bold and go ahead! As long as the category name is neutral, not an exact duplicate of some other category under a slightly different name, and contains at least two items, you are good. Now, as to your other questions:

Normally, when an item is placed into a child category, it should not also be added to a parent category. There are, of course, times when an exception to this rule is warranted, but more often than not such an approach simply overpopulates the parent category without providing much benefit to our readers. My recommendation would be to add the companies to the "Engineering companies of Russia" cat, and that cat—to the "Companies of Russia by industry" cat.
I don't believe there is a developed set of the "Companies based in..." categories for Russia—there are a few like Category:Companies based in Vladivostok, but that's it. Having a category set by city/federal subject makes perfect sense, though, and it's been done for the US/Canadian/UK companies already. I see no reason why it shouldn't be a viable approach for Russia.

Hope this helps! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:33, July 15, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Personally, I think it would be good to add an article both to the child and the parent category, because if one wants to take a look at all Russian company articles, it is easier to do this if everything is in the same category rather than having to click through all subcategories. It's also stupid that some articles are in the main category now but many aren't; if the reader clicks only on the main category, he may think that there are no more companies than is present there. I think I will create a company category for every federal subject and city which has at least two company articles. There's probably no harm in doing that. Also, I've noticed that many of the Russian company articles I've worked on get almost zero hits in a day. This may be because the article isn't linked to in enough places. Which places do you think would it be approriate to place a link in? The economy chapter of the region's article and the city's article are the only places I can think of. Ideally, every industry sector should have its own article, (such as Defense industry of Russia, which could be easily expanded a lot), and links could be placed in them, but most of the sectors (I think there are very few right now) do not have an article yet. Offliner (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem with almost zero hits a day is due to the articles not being linked to from enough places; I think it's more due to the fact that the articles are about not too well-known Russian companies in English Wikipedia :) From what I've seen, high-profile articles like Moscow, Russia, and Vladimir Putin are guaranteed to get a lot of attention, but the rest of the pack—not so much. Here's systemic bias in action for you :) Most readers just don't care, and that's OK, because the info would still be available to a few of those who do.

Regarding the child/parent categories, I would disagree. The parent category is supposed to hold the articles which are either too general (and can't be further subcategorized), or which apply to multiple subcategories, or which do not yet have a subcategory to assign them to (e.g., if we have subcats for Yekaterinburg, Vladivostok, but not for Samara, the articles on Yek/Vlad-based companies would go into subcats but a lone article about a Samara-based company would stay in "Companies of Russia"). This assists the cleanup efforts quite a bit, whilst if you just dump every single Russian company into one parent cat, not only would the cat be impossible to navigate efficiently, it would also make it that much harder to find an article which is not assigned to a subcat when it should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, July 15, 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUS move

Hi, Ezhiki, would you mind helping move the Timoshenko article to the Semyon Timoshenko version? I'd do it myself, but it doesn't budge without admin intervention... Thanks! PasswordUsername (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What goes on in the heads of the people who think "Семён" is best romanized "Semen", I will never understand :) I have moved the article to Semyon Timoshenko, which didn't require admin rights to do. I suspect you were trying to move it to "Semyon Tymoshenko", no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:21, July 16, 2009 (UTC)

Never quite understood it either – and I think you're right about the y too. Thanks a lot for the help. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semen Tymoshenko

He is Ukrainian, not Russian. Why should the article be called with Russian name? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 14:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because he was Soviet, and since the Soviets oppressed and heavily Russified Ukrainians, he is best known under his Russified name, even in English?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:07, July 16, 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others people's !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [17]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to the proposal to suspend the AfD nominations of the bilateral relations articles altogether; until this whole issue could be discussed from a broader philosophical standpoint? I recall seeing such a proposal around, but for some reason can't find where it was held. That would probably be a solution to a long-term problem, as opposed to this moratorium proposal, which I generally support but do not believe to solve anything apart from the short-term problem with tempers running high.

Thanks for the message, though. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, July 16, 2009 (UTC)

Accommodation ladder

This stub was created by myself, but it's too short. It would be fine, if you could translate the russian article and this way save the article. --Obersachse (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry about missing this! I was off on Friday and busy with building a shiny new PC at home all weekend, so I wasn't checking wiki at all. I see the article is no longer prodded (and not even AfD'd), and that you expanded it yourself. Hopefully that'll be that. If you still want me to add more to it (by translating parts from ru_wiki), please do let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, July 20, 2009 (UTC)

Russian infoboxes

OK I think its time some of the infoboxes were updated. I've lightened the colour to a standard blue on them which I think renders better with the page and made some changes see Bryansk for instance. I don't want to seem as if I am "invading" your territory but I do have some suggestions. See Kaliningrad Oblast. I think we should really do away with the block sections it wastes space and does not help the user. I think having block banners for small sections like area is certianly and I think we could do without the others. Coat of arms and flag well you can see it is that given they have labels anyway, population, government etc, the bloc headers are not really needed. Also could you explain to me the use of having Charter of... and Representative Body linked because where I've seen an infobox it is always red linked. Is it really necessary, because i think red links in infoboxes look untidy. Most of the time Charter and Representative Body seem unneccessary. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes. See Omsk. I think the infoboxes look tidier and more straightforward now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some further recommendations. I would suggest adding a parameter for timezone, Russia is so important in this respect. I would remove the unsightly timezone section from the oblast articles and add it neatly in the infoboxes. Also I would set the infobox at default hide, meaning that if one of the fields isn't filled in it hides it rather than says N/A. The amount of towns with no infobox or coordinates is really not good enough and any data is better than nothing. Nobody can expect you to fill in everyone but I think you should make the infoboxe shide the empty paramters by default and not display N/A.

Another thing, can you remove the oblast locator maps form the russian city template? With the regional pin locators they look very awkaward because most often they look nothing like it on the nationanal oblast locator map because it is tiltled 90 degrees! It makes it more difficult to understand from my persepctive. I would recommend removing the oblast locators and replacing it with the Template:Location map Russia for all. I've requested a better locator map of Russia so hopefully soon enough we will have one but I think it is best to use two pin maps than the awkward oblast map in city articles. It will be much more useful for you to replace it with the national pin locator alongside the regional one. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about you, Blo, is that you are never afraid to fuck up a million little pieces in one fell swoop :) Anyway, my official response is that I will diligently review the changes you made and will post a carefully written, balanced analysis ( hopefully without strangling you in the process :))... as soon as I get some damn work done around the place that is kind enough to continue providing employment to a lazy (albeit a very valuable and irreplaceable) ass which is me. And by the way, it's your turf as much as it is mine or anyone else's—no hard feelings there! Just because I spent numerous hours carefully planning the layout and setting the interdependencies does not at all mean you can't go in and re-arrange everything.

In case you are not sure, the above was said in a cheerful, friendly tones, although some sarcastic notes were intentional :)

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, July 20, 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Blo! Sorry for the delay with the answer, but apart from being busy I also needed some time to think this through. I'll try addressing your suggestions point-by-point, so it's easier to keep track of them. Feel free to comment on each one separately as well.

Infobox colors. I am actually of two minds about this. The blue color for the federal subject (FS) boxes was chosen, if I remember correctly, to match the blue of the Russian flag; the colors for the city/district boxes were pretty much arbitrary, but matching the color saturation level of the FS box (the light green is also the same one the Russian Wikipedia uses for the city boxes). In the hindsight, that was probably not the best selection—the color looks fine on the flag, but when used in an infobox it makes it pretty gaudy. So, you softening the colors is something I have no problems with. What I am concerned about is that now all the boxes (FS/city/district) use the same (ugly!) purple color. I hope your love to this color doesn't go as far as to insist on keeping it :), but I am actually more worried that using the same color on the boxes does away with the color coding. What I mean is that an average wiki reader would have no idea what the difference between an FS and, say, a district in Russia is; color coding the infoboxes makes it immediately obvious that the article about, say, Kaliningrad Oblast and Giaginsky District are actually about two very different concepts. I would strongly advocate for using different colors for different concepts; as for what colors to use, that, of course, is open to discussion (preferably not between you and me, but on WT:RUSSIA, in case anybody else gives a damn).
Sections. I disagree that sections in the boxes are not useful. Sections allow grouping related bits of information in a clean and logical manner. Only when we have too many sections does that become a problem. Your removal of the "Area" section, for example, is something that makes perfect sense (I recall making it a separate section because I was planning to add more parameters to it, but in the end all that was left was just the area itself); on the other hand, merging the "Administrative" and "Municipal structure" sections on the district box would be something that actually makes the information much more confusing. With the flag and coat of arms, I was trying to fit links to the heraldry and flag articles along with the links to the articles about the CoA and flag of the entity itself—I agree that the section approach wasn't the best in this case. Not sure how to do it better, though, so if you have ideas, please don't hesitate to share.
Charter and representative body. Charter and legislation of a FS/district/city are actually very important concepts in Russia. I realize that the links to those are presently mostly all red, but that's only because just like with many other important Russia-related things there are not enough (interested) people to work on those. When interested people show up, we get articles like State Council of the Chuvash Republic, which is short but still very worthy of being linked to. Having entity's charter and representative body listed is just as important as listing the president/chairperson/head/mayor/etc.
Timezone. The idea of adding a timezone parameter was shot before more than once. With the federal subjects, all articles already have a time zone section; as for the districts/inhabited localities, their time zone would always match the time zone of the federal subject they are located in. The only localities that would benefit from this parameter are those in the Sakha Republic (which spans three time zones) and in Sakhalin Oblast (which spans two). If you want to re-open this can of worms, feel free to post an inquiry on WT:RUSSIA. Myself, I don't believe this parameter is needed and feel that the way it is going to be filled out is by people doing a random google search and inserting the first piece of data they can find. Unlike with the rest of the parameters, there is no one good authoritative source which gives up-to-date information on the Russian time zones.
N/As in fields. When I was designing these boxes, I deliberately did not make the sections auto-hideable. If one is to approach filling out these infoboxes diligently, the data for every single parameter can be found without much difficulty. If one adds an infobox which mostly shows N/A's, it means that the person added it just for the heck of it and it is unlikely that s/he took time to make sure that the few parameters which had been added are actually correct. You yourself the other day had to go through a bunch of boxes which were basically copy-pasted across a number of articles—someone did not even bother to check that the names were changed from one article to another! How good do you think is the rest of the information in these boxes? On the other hand, the N/A's had been implemented before the auto-map feature was enabled; today, even if all one can add is a name the resulting infobox would probably still be useful because of the automap it would show. I'll keep that in mind during future design efforts.
FS locators vs. {Location map Russia}. The problem with {{Location map Russia}} is that when it is stuffed into a cramped infobox, it's very hard to understand what's going on in it. This is especially true for small republics like Adygea, Chechnya, etc. I know what you mean about the FS locators being somewhat confusing (although I don't quite get the part about some maps being tilted 90°—would you have an example handy?), but I still believe they are an improvement over the locator map for the whole of Russia. If you manage to get a better locator map of Russia which wouldn't have these deficiencies, I'll be all for using it, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:15, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy we can negotiate a return of the green colour if the blue default is not to your taste. I was a bit worried that you'd explode at me so when I saw your name I was concerned because now is very bad time. I've encountered a great deal of unplesantnessness on here in the last 24 hours causing one of the good guys to leave wikipedia. I hope we can come to a good agreement and I'm sure you'll see why I made a lot of the changes. I didn't get a reply for a while so I was Bold. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I do get annoyed real easy, but I don't ever recall "exploding" :) Especially not on you!

As for these darn infoboxes, I want to improve them just as much as you do; I just prefer thoroughly planning the process first and implementing the changes later—apparently, in those regards I am a unique individual, as everyone wants to have everything changed right away. Oh well, such is life.

Anyway, whenever you are through with the Poppe conundrum, you are welcome back to my talk page; we'll discuss the infoboxes then. In the meanwhile, I'll try to go back to the drawing board and hopefully will have something for you when you return (unless I get distracted in the process, which happens more than I like to admit!). Best of luck,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:37, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hey amigo, well lets discuss it now then, it may take my mind off it. As long as you don't want to revert all of my changes!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do want that very much, but it wouldn't be, erm, what's your British concept for that, ahh, polite! :)

Seriously, though, if you want to comment on the points I laid out above, that'd probably get the ball rolling. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hokay, I've restored the green anyway, although the "purple" is actually intended to be blue and is the standard we have for templates!! Right then. I thought the charter was also obviously of some significance otherwise you;d not have included it eh? I would like to see more articles on them though if this important. I don't mind one or two hearders seperating say administrative information from historical information. Personally though I thought the section for area and population was unnecessary and could basically be fitted in the main section. I felt it important to add the overall country section to the infoboxes just to avoid any confusions and for people who may not be familiar with the subject. We do this all over wikipedia and for those who know the cities it may seem silly, for instance who diesn't know London is in the UK? LOL. But overall I think the boxes look a lot clearer and understandable that way. Personally I'd like to keep the data given in the boxes as simplified as possible. It is a shame about the charter and the other because I added a few infoboxes with all the information except that and another and it made the infobox look a little ugly with the na. I think it is important that the urban type settlements at least have the infobox with the map/coat of arms, population/ area and the details I've been adding. If you are sure every town in Russia willl have a Charter article eventually then I'll accept it, I jus tthnk it would look tidier to hide it until somebody decides to start the article articles thats all. Do you follow? P.S I imported some photographs from Russian wikipedia and uploaded them to the commons for us to use. I'd like to work with you at adding infoboxes to our urban settlement articles and at least get them at a standard level. I was surprised how many tiowns particularly in Siberia which look notable in my atlas that are stubs!! Where possible i have also recolored the maps to green and sandy to look more lik emaps rather than looking like upper Greenland. They look more attractive I think. Also, OK we'll keep the oblast maps only until we get our decent location map svg which should avoid all of the previous problems and look nice and clean. I have a feeling we may have to wait quite some time for that though but I've asked, at least. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gween is good :)
As for the charters, here's a stub-creation idea for you! This task lends itself easily to automation (the basic information that needs to be added is the title, adoption date, effective date, list of amendments, table of contents, and a link to the Charter's full text, which also serves as a self-reference), although I could imagine for you the difficulty would be the fact that everything is in Russian.
Adding the country field, that, I think, is just silly. Every single city article would say that this is a "city in Russia" right in the lead (and if in some it doesn't say that, it should be added); mentions of "Russia" would further be scattered throughout the article, the infobox would have a map of Russia prominently on top—why the heck do we need another line to state the obvious? You yourself find it funny that the London article explicitly clarifies that that's the city in the UK. Why add something that is so clearly redundant? Not to mention that for Russia the traditional break-down by "country-province-district-county" levels cannot be done cleanly. Once you drill to the federal subject level, where you go next depends on whether you are interested in the federal subject's administrative or municipal divisions. Neryungri, for example, is administratively a town of the republican significance (i.e., it has the same status as the uluses), but municipally it is only an urban settlement, albeit one that's the administrative center of the municipal district which the territory within the administrative borders of the city of Neryungri comprises. Good luck programming around that. With sections, at least, both aspects of the city can be presented separately. When you "simplify" the box by mingling both sections in one data flow, you are not simplifying life for those for whom it matters the most—our readers. Remember some time ago I was explaining why Russian cities should not use the generic {Settlement} infobox? This is one of the very good reasons why—things for Russia are just too different to neatly fit under one-size-fits-all approach. If we care about our readers at all, we should recognize when making exceptions is warranted and justified. I am sorry if this may sound offensive, but sometimes it seems to me that you believe I just want to control my own version of the infobox for no particular reason at all, apart from satisfying my control-freak personality. I assure you that is not the case.
As for the box for the urban-settlements, previous consensus on WP:RUSSIA was not to create one until most of the articles about the urban-type settlements grow to at least Start level. An article with an infobox which is five times longer than the text hardly entices anyone to believe that the information in the box is well-researched and accurate, wouldn't you agree? At any rate, we shouldn't be bothering with creating an urban-type settlement infobox until we have a stable infobox for the cities, or we risk to simply create a maintenance nightmare for the WikiProject with the membership base that is hardly active as is. If I learned anything in real life, it's that the surest way to kill any project is by assigning too much work to extremely limited resources—people will get overworked and quit, deadlines will get missed, and in the end nothing (except harm) will be done. WikiProjects are no different—you keep dumping dull maintenance work on them, they die.
It is important to remember than having an infobox is not the final goal, it's a means to an end. "An end", in our case, is creating a thorough, usable, and well-referenced article. Once the content hits critical mass, it makes sense to summarize it, and that's where adding an infobox becomes most useful. In a two-page article, it helps to have something to quickly glance through to get the most important facts and to find out what the most important links are. In a two-line article, an infobox does not help anything except creating an impression of sloppiness and lack of professionalism.
On the maps issue (them being green), I concur; they do look better that way (not to mention they now match the green scheme of the infoboxes nicely!). And, of course, thanks for all your work with the pictures—much appreciated!
On an unrelated note, can you take a look at this list and let me know what you think? This is supposed to be the pilot version of how the set indices on the Russian inhabited localities will look like—I've implemented (in one form or another) all of the ideas I had, and am now looking for more input by uninvolved parties. These, by the way, when done, can double as sources for article-creation bot runs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

The list looks fine, I would clean up the oblast division lists though as some of them ar ewuite hard to follow. I saw a table somewhere and thought the information was best presented in table format like that. I know for major cities the country name often seems redundant but I just think it is easier to follow from a world perspective. I just anybody should be able to find any place in the world , look at the infobox and know immediately where it is. Some people may get the wrong impression that the Russian republics are countries etc so that is why I insist of clearing it up. Remember people of a big age range and background use wikipedia and it is not always obvious. IN the same I dislike just regional/locator maps with know reference to where it is in the country as people who don't know the country have no idea. Spainand the United States more often than not are guilty of this. At least the Russian maps you get the idea. I'm happy to create the charter articles with sources but I would say first priority is the expand some of the towns and create the districts with some information. I do think the infoboxes are paart of developing a stub into a start class (in terms of improving quality anyway) and I think the benefits of the location map, coat of arms, population, area and other data is more useful than not just because the article may not be full length or one or two fields are missing. If the article is a one liner I agree but if it is a paragraph or so long and referenced I think it is OK, especially if a photoraph is available and fits conviently in the box. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, please, clarify what you mean by "hard to follow"? As for the table layout, I didn't go that route that because for a list that size the page would take forever to load (try looking at or editing this more than once to see what I mean), but for smaller lists it would definitely be an option to consider. Thanks for the suggestion.

As for the Stub→Start development, one doesn't really need an infobox to do that, what is needed first and foremost is content. Besides, coat, flag, and even a locator map can be all added separately without overwhelming a stub as much as a full-blown infobox (even with hideable parameters) would. Sorry, not buying this one still.

On mentioning "Russia", I kind of like the blue bar on the infoboxes on the US cities (e.g., Kansas City, Missouri), which says "— city —". I think for Russian cities adding a similar bar which would say "— a city in Russia —" would be a neat way to address the problem you mentioned above. What's your opinion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:42, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be fine I was going to also suggest that. I can just about agree with you most of it but the Russia name, I definately think it should appear in the infobox. If you are talking about adminstrative information I think this should always be at the top followed by province/ district/ municipality/commune etc. Well I'm perfectly happy with how the infobox looks for Omsk now. It think it looks clear and neat, if we had a regional locator for Omsk oblast it would look even better.... If we could add like a blue line at the top for urban status this would be the icing on the cake I believe. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you maybe misunderstood me (or maybe I you)? If we have "a city in Russia" at the top (something you said you had been thinking about yourself), what's the point of having "Country: Russia" listed again further down the box? And as I previously explained, we cannot do the province/district/municipality tree in the template, because, first, we'll need to have two such trees (administrative and municipal separately), and second, oftentimes those trees are not going to match one another (see the Neryungri example above). Which again brings me back to the fact that (these two, at least) should be handled via separate sections. You gotta make peace with the fact that the template isn't going to look exactly like the "standard" templates used elsewhere :) This is one case where it is important that it doesn't.

As for Omsk, I am not happy with it at all. Everything is now in one heap, it's too darn messy! Placing area/population/postal code/telephone code/etc. in one flow is not really a problem (everyone intuitively knows what those are), but when it comes to highly country-specific information (administrative status, local government, municipal aspects) such mingling is simply inexcusable. These two sections are the very least that need to be restored in order for the box to make at least some semblance of sense. Try removing all subheaders from the article itself, so everything seamlessly flows into everything else—you'll see right away why this doesn't work.

I am not trying to say that the version before your edits was ideal; it was not. I am still planning to completely re-design this infobox (this one still has technical glitches, has no parameters for such important thing as references, and includes such unnecessary stuff as "events", which really should belong in the text) and, as per this discussion of (h)ours, I will try keeping the number of specialized sections to a minimum (i.e, there'll be no sections such as "area" or, god forbid, "other information I didn't know where else to stuff in"). I can't do away with vital grouping such as admin/mun separation, though; I hope you understand it's not my pigheadedness, but actually a valid concern. And of course, I'll give you a holler when the template is ready for prime-time, because if I don't, it wouldn't be, what's that word again, ah!, polite :) And I am a polite person, even though it's not always obvious :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:36, July 24, 2009 (UTC)

Aww!! It looks fine! If you want to restore a column or two then do so. I will fully support it if you want to restore two main columns anyway. I believe I did keep the sections intact for one templates anyway. I understand that Russia is different from any other country its sheer size and a range of places makes that clear. But the old infoboxes were far from ideal. I think it would be a shame to restore it as it was before. I think we should adjust the current one to one which you are also happy with and we can find a happy medium. I think the colour change from bright cobalt blue on the oblast templates was also the right one to make. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the columns per our discussion, I think they look good actually with adminstrative information, history and other sections. Any more and it would be too much I think... So it kind of looks like it did before anyway! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC) What I'd so now is remove the Municipal status section from the main and add it in the blue bar at the top like you see on the others. So it would be Omsk then under neath it would read plainly Urban okrug or Urban settlement etc. Sound good? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, what would you say about getting the actual name of the settlement to appear on the regional pin maps? For some reason I couldn't get it to appear, only on hovering. Could you add the label so it would feature say Bratsk next to the red pin on the map? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Łapka

Слушай, если будет возможность напиши на странице участника, как надо переименовывать страницы и что для поиска что Łapka что Lapka безразлично. Спасибо.--Andrey! 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Вообще, он всё-таки прав. Названия страниц разрешения неоднозначностей могут содержать диакритику, если все вхождения на этой страницы также содержат диакритику. В данном же случае у нас имеются польская Łapka и российская Lapka, из чего следует, что дизамбиг должен быть под "Lapka". Ведь если польскую Лапку в английском тексте запросто можно увидеть под "Lapka", то обратное утверждение (для питерской реки) будет неверным. Другими словами, "Lapka can refer to Łapka, a village in Poland", но "Łapka cannot refer to the Lapka River in Russia".

Не следует также забывать, что дизамбиги из двух предметов в целом бесполезны — гораздо проще в польской статье сверху добавить "For the river in Russia...", а в русской (когда она появится) — "For the village in Poland...".

Для целей поиска это всё большого значения действительно не имеет, но с точки зрения правил оформления — это важно.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, July 21, 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, sorry about that, I thought I'd IAR to save an admin a bit of work, and ended up causing about 50 times more work by the time you'd finished. I'll be more cautious next time...--Kotniski (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. It was an easy fix... or so I thought until I fucked up in the middle of the process myself :) Still, everything now seems to be where it's supposed to, plus it was fun!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:51, July 21, 2009 (UTC)

Aliya Yussupova

Добрый день, Ёжики! Национально озабоченный словенский (татарский) вандал никак не уймётся - ему всё еще кажется, что Алия Юсупова не казашка, а татарка. В ру-вики Торин поставил на три месяца статью под полузащиту (edit=autoconfirmed). Можете поставить такую же защиту в англо-вики на тот же срок? Это тот случай, когда анонимы могут больше навредить, чем дать пользы проекту. Спасибо! С почтением, --Ds02006 (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Да вот вчера вернул опять как было. Пока вроде не очень часто домогается, защищать особого смысла не вижу (проще откатить; в списке наблюдения эту страницу продолжаю держать). Если разбуянятся, обязательно защищу.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, July 23, 2009 (UTC)

Boris Efimov

Should we move Boris Efimov to Boris Yefimov? It's currently move-protected, and I'm not sure what to do about it. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was protected indefinitely because a vandal moved it ten months ago. That's no good. I've unprotected the page, moved to it Yefimov (because you are right, that's where it belongs), and watchlisted it, in case the vandal hits it again. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:28, July 25, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting. :) PasswordUsername (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Помоги с шаблонами. Пожалуйста.

Слушай, есть ли здесь аналог ru:Шаблон:перенесено с. А то пишут некоторые на личную страницу обсуждения не по делу.--Andrey! 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Посмотри на ru:Александровская колонна#Установка колонны. Видишь там двуязычную цитату? А в Russian submarine Kazan мне не удалось так изящно выкрутиться. Есть ли шаблон цитирования с такими возможностями?--Andrey! 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Нету. Есть практически никем не используемый {{Moved to}}. В принципе, можно по аналогии создать и {{Moved from}}.
Насколько мне известно, шаблона с такими же возможностями у нас нет. Опять-таки, если надумаешь портировать ru:Шаблон:Oq, вряд ли кто будет против.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

National Tatarstan Orchestra

Hi. Any chance you could find some sources in Russian? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking to reference? The only sentence in the article is already supported by the external links.

A quick search also produces this review on the Tatarstan's Ministry of Culture website; more is available, but I guess it depends which way you want the article to develop.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

Sources that could be used to flesh the stub out a little bit. I came across the orchestra on YouTube and wanted to write a bit more about them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MinCult review would be a great start then. I guess you are probably planning to feed it to a machine translator, but let me know if you see any passages that need to be clarified. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

Yep that was exactly what I was looking for. I wasnt' sure though if the "society" was the same thing as the orchestra. I think I'll move the pagename to a different title. Hey are you happier now with the readded columns in the infobox? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the "society" part came from in the link description; rest assured, the website is about the same entity (although, unlike the MinCult review, it is an unofficial website, so use caution).

As for the infobox, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet (I've just returned from my weekly weekend wikibreak), but I'm planning to look at it after I catch up with my watchlist monitoring.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

Hokay, I've added a bit of info, seems to make sense. If you could just proof read it if you have time. The name of the current leader didn't translate too well, can you add it? I listed up until 2003. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be ru:Участник:Rubin16 can help you. He is a nativ tatarian and understands english language. --Obersachse (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfYC

I recall your sound advice and assistance with Ivanov, and I cant help but feel that your opinion over here (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Fiske_Harrison) would be invaluable and could ensure that the deletion process comes to the right conclusion (either supporting or opposing my view). Irbisgreif (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I normally avoid AfDs about the subjects which are completely alien to me, so the comment I supplied is based strictly on my interpretation of the policy/guidelines. Like I said, if additional sources are introduced by folks who are more familiar with the subject than I am, I'd be more than willing to re-assess and, depending on the quality of those sources, possibly even change my position.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:04, July 29, 2009 (UTC)

Clive Fiske Harrison

Thank you for giving your reasons cogently. However, you did not address the articles, presented in the comment before your judgement, reprinted below--Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made this remark elsewhere, but I will put it again here: notability in the business world does not translate as celebrity. However, there is a reason that the lead financial columnist for The Times describes Clive Harrison as, "one person whose views I respect."[18] Equally, when the newspaper of the City of London, the Evening Standard, ran two articles [19] & [20] about the head of Uk's financial regulatory body. The two separate financial journalists quoted the same four people: the chairman of Treasury Select Committee, the chief executive of Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers, the director-general of the Association of Independent Financial Advisors AND Clive Harrison (note that 2 of the other 3 have Wiki entries, and the third should). This raises the question, do the editors here know more than the journalists whose lives revolve around this world? Or are they claiming the business world is somehow less notable in itself? It is for this reason the editorial board of Debrett's People of Today placed him in their business leaders section[21] under the advice of the editor of that section and his contacts. As for other sources, here is a couple: The Independent [22] and also, the Investor's Chronicle [23], which, under the headline 'Fiske Holds Its Own' began this article: "A year ago, Fiske's chief executive and founder Clive Harrison predicted a tough 2008 for stock markets, and so it proved. But Fiske has old-fashioned virtues to keep it going in hard times: for starters, it2 has plenty of cash and has been cash-positive ever since the company was formed 35 years ago.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a follow-up response on the AfD page and will post more once I review these additional sources. Thanks for pointing them out. Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, July 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence. I understand your reasoning, and realise that the default position when there is a COI is delete (rather than trying to rescue the article). The company does pass the CORP regs, not least because they explicitly mention 'Hoovers' directory with reference to publicly traded companies - I have added the link to the article and the AfD. I cannot write the Fiske article as I can't be bothered with more AfDs (next thing they'll try and delete bullfighting too because I edited that). With ref to Clive Fiske Harrison himself, I genuinely believe the use of terms like renowned when Fiske was named 'top broker' by Bloomberg here [24] and respect by The Times simply do add up to notability - they indicate that within the world referred to, an undoubtedly important world at that, the figure is noted. i.e. notable. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do add up to notability, just not to the kind of notability WP:BIO aims to establish. Our guidelines are more restrictive, is all. Other than that (well, and the COI concerns), I have no prejudice against this particular article; as a matter of fact, being an inclusionist, I would very much love to see it kept. I just can't justify such a "keep", based on the information presented so far and on how it falls within our guidelines framework.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:22, July 29, 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of companies

I have a little problem with the categorization of some Russian companies. There are many companies whose sector is machine building. But I guess this is not the correct English term, since it doesn't have an article. The corresponding German article de:Maschinenbau links to the English article mechanical engineering. Is mechanical engineering the correct term for the industry sector? In any case, the category Mechanical engineering companies of Russia does not exist. There are only categories Engineering companies of Russia and Manufacturing companies of Russia - should the machine building companies should be put in one of these two? I'm also not sure what "engineering companies" exactly means. I don't even know where I should ask about this. Offliner (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Машиностроение" is indeed translated as "mechanical engineering". As for what "engineering companies" are supposed to comprise, I have no idea (I would guess that "mechanical engineering companies" would qualify, but the whole concept of the cat eludes me). You might want to contact user:Beagel, who started Category:Engineering companies of Russia and ask him what the big picture is supposed to look like and where in that picture this particular category would fall.

If that fails, I'd recommend to start Category:Mechanical engineering companies of Russia and make it a subcat of :Cat:Engineering companies of Russia; that should work reasonably well, at least in the interim until you figure out how everything works together.

Sorry for not being of much help with this; I don't deal with these cats too often.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:14, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask Beagel about his. But I have another question: I'd like to create a category for all companies involved in the space program. I guess Category:Aerospace companies of Russia actually already covers the space industry companies as well (it's called aerospace after all). But I'd like a more specific category. But what should I call it? "Space industry of Russia" would sound good, but can this be made a subcat of "Companies of Russia by industry"? Or maybe "Space industry companies of Russia" would be better? Offliner (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to deal with this myself, I would just go with Category:Space industry companies of Russia and stuff it under Category:Aerospace companies of Russia. Seems to be the most logical approach to me. Have you checked how this was solved for other countries, by the way? Sometimes it's easier to copy someone else's cat structure rather than to go through the pains of inventing one on your own.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:39, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Russian influence operations in Estonia

You said earlier that you may support the deletion of Russian influence operations in Estonia. There is now an AfD discussion here. Offliner (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Romulan War (novel)

I believe the title of a book is what is written on the cover; thus as "The Romulan War" is the only title to appear, and hardly anywhere else lists the book as having the "Beneath the Raptor's Wing" subtitle, it would make sense that it will not be included in the full title. And I think it will be the only "Romulan War" novel. Dave (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:08, August 3, 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, "they've" officially named the novel as you wrote it, I have corrected the link on the page and now created the article for it. I think no-one had absolute confirmation earlier, slight confusion amongst the "Trek masses" as well! Dave (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rv--please take care of the incoming links first

Wrt to http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Issa&diff=305826301&oldid=305679132 what exactly did you mean? There are no incoming links for International Sports Sciences Association, and I suspect there never will, either. -- Egil (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are two. I can't tell if they are of acceptable quality myself, but if the entry is to be removed from the dab, someone will need to consider them. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, August 4, 2009 (UTC)

Point taken -- Egil (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Интересно твоё мнение по шаблону

Есть шаблон по вокзалам Санкт-Петербурга в русской википедии. Он мне кажется чересчур неоднородным. Я хочу его перенести сюда и сделать несколько связанных между собой шаблонов. Это позволит не распыляться в статьях и поддерживать связность навигации.--Andrey! 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Проверь пожалуйста уместность названий шаблонов и изложи своё мнение относительно идеи.--Andrey! 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Извиняюсь за задержку с ответом — совершенно не заметил это сообщение.

По шаблону у меня особого мнения нет — если будут все в одном, то пусть будут; будут отдельно для ж/д, автобусов и т.д., тоже нормально. Единственное, что мне не нравится, так это то, что они все записаны как "вокзалы". Если шаблон разбить, то эта проблема будет решена.

Кстати, для ж/д вокзалов шаблон у нас уже есть: {{Rail terminals in St. Petersburg}}.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:45, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

Потому что вместе плохо сочетается тематика - я разделил на вокзалы и пр. (связность через подвал шаблона). Оставлю пока так.--Andrey! 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

У меня 100 новых статей в разделе.--Andrey! 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Сделал для interwiki Template:Terminals in St. Petersburg. Если можешь, поправь интервики на него. А где стиль чётных, чтобы отделить их друг от друга?--Andrey! 06:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, я не знаю, что такое стиль чётных... Это что-то из ru_wiki?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, August 14, 2009 (UTC)

Это когда задаётся цвет фона для всех существующих чётных строк навигационного шаблона. Вот пример серого цвета: Шаблон:Санкт-петербургский трамвай.--Andrey! 18:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Есть ещё один навигационный шаблон Template:Stations of the railway with transfer on sea transport который я так же, как и этот по факту написания разделю на российский, стран Балтии, белорусско-украинский, кавказский и азиатский шаблоны.--Andrey! 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About biased articles

I'm not sure if it's approariate to point out an AfD discussion to you, when you haven't previously been involved (is it?), but here seems to be another pretty bad case of WP:SYNTH: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide. Taking a look at the sources used in the article, I have found absolutely nothing to confirm that "communist genocide" is a real term or concept, not to mention a notable concept enough for its own article. We could rename it to "Genocide commited by communist governments", but even then it seems too much like an advocating POV article and original synthesis. All the material is surely already present in the different genocide articles, so there doesn't seem to be any need for this kind of article. It seems pretty shocking if this kind of article is allowed to stay. Offliner (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The only good use this article has is setting a classic example of what synthesis looks like. This one is no Red Terror.

As for the appropriateness, as long as you haven't posted this message to a hundred other editors who you think would also support deletion, I see no problem. In future, however, I would recommend you to consider limiting such postings to the talk pages of the appropriate wikiprojects. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, August 5, 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this piece of rubbish was actually kept. Igny's prediction tells us what will happen next. We're at point nr. 2 now, and point 3 is about to start. In the end, the result will be a huge waste of time for all participants. The only good thing about the article (which was created by a banned troll) is that it's so biased, it's almost funny. I'm still laughing at the former opening sentence From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide. I guess the best thing to do would be to forget all about the article and let the trolls troll in peace. Sensible readers (if anyone's ever going to read the article anyway) will notice that something about the article is not right, and will take it to AfD again eventually, and then we'll start all over from point 1. Offliner (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offy, in relation to the posting of messages, if you come across a relevant article in the future and it doesn't have the WP:RUSSIA tag on the talk page, you can add {{WikiProject Russia|class=|importance=}} to the talk page (you can add the assess and importance tags as well if you like), and it will then appear in the Article bot alerts section half way down the page of WP:RUSSIA, allowing others to see what is currently up for deletion. As to the article, it is amazing it was kept, but you are right in just letting it go, readers will know it is biased as hell and will hopefully ignore it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Smirnov

Hello. I've just PRODded this dab; please take a look at it and consider if there's anything that can be improved. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not responding sooner. I have deprodded this pages after having created all three stubs based on the corresponding GSE entries. I appreciate you taking time to notify me of the situation with this page and I hope the resolution will serve as a good-faith collateral ensuring that the majority of other Russia-related people dabs are similarly resolvable. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:29, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. It was stupid of me not to doublecheck the NC first. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are so many of them NCs, no one can be expected to be able to keep track of them all :).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, August 10, 2009 (UTC)

Eudoxia Streshneva

Hello! I've noticed that you moved Eudoxia Streshneva to Yevdokiya Streshnyova per Wiki guideline. However, the move is against another Wiki guideline: common name. Eudoxia Streshneva is known to historians, but Yevdokiya Streshnyova isn't. Eudoxia Streshneva is used by 200 websites, while Yevdokiya Streshnyova is used by 10 websites. Even Britannica refers to her as Eudoxia. In other words, Eudoxia Streshneva is the most common name, while Yevdokiya Streshnyova is original research. I propose moving the page back to Eudoxia Streshneva. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find more than a dozen references to support either variant (which means none of them is more "common" than another), so I moved the article to the variant most close to WP:RUS. That said, feel free to file a move request to move it back, if you wish. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for reply! Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Consider, however, the fact that Slavonic and East European review refers to her as "Yevdokiya" (so no original research here). As a specialized academic peer-reviewed publication, it carries more weight than Britannica.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

It might not be original research, but the former name was certainly more common among the historians. Eugene Schuyler and other Romanov-specialized books refer to her as Eudoxia. See also results for tsaritsa Eudoxia and czarina Eudoxia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we both have a right to disagree on this. I logged my formal "oppose" vote on the RM, but will, of course, abide by the outcome of the discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Template:SPb Metro\Line 5

Пожалуйста, посмотри. Интересует, кто может оказать посильную помощь в модификации шаблона. Спасибо.--Andrey! 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Я вижу там уже ответили. Помогло? Или нужна дополнительная помощь?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, August 14, 2009 (UTC)

And then we were in blue link heaven

Special:Contributions/SieBot - still blocked. Siebrand (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hutchinson

Hi. I have started a few articles that appear in my Hutchinson encyclopedia. Tilichiki I've expanded, may want to check it though, and I've started a number of articles, not sure if they are urban type settlements though or rural. The atlas of my encyclopedia shows what appear to be the main town and cities in Russia but it does so pretty evenly so it may include some rural villages in Siberia etc. Bulkur I am looking at now is located virtually on the same latitude as Tiksi and same longitude as Bulun. Maybe it now has a different name? The article in my encyclopedia just says village port in northern Siberia on the Lena River Delta. Plenty of google hits that verify it, see this. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian name according to google is река Булкур. Peka is rural locality I think... Does this ring a bell now? I await your response. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The google hits are mostly for the Bulkur River, which is most definitely at the coordinates you specified; and some other hits are ambiguous (i.e., it could be about a village, or a river, or a mining post, or whatever). "Река" also means "river". I'll keep looking, of course, but one thing that's 100% certain is that there is no populated place at these coordinates now. I would also speculate that if there ever was one, it was abolished in the 1980s, and it never was an urban-type settlement to start with (those are pretty well-documented; I would have found something by now). Mind if I move the article to Bulkur River and modify it accordingly? If something else comes up, we can re-start "Bulkur" no problem.

Tilichiki, by the way, is fine. I added it to my "to clean-up" list, but the village does still exist.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

This source and a number of others suggest it is a place too. It also mentions Bulun which is about 300 kilometres south of Bulkur. It shows that a botanist collects samples of a mushroom plant species at Bulkur in 1910. See here. Ah no, it refers to the Bulkur River. Move it to Bulkur River, maybe there was once a settlement named Bulkur, I seriously foubt my encyclopedia would pin it on the atlas as a settlement like tilichiki if not. BTW I also started Machevna. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Machevna, see here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll move the article to "Bulkur River" and will keep my eyes open for anything about a possible settlement that existed in that area. "Machevna" also seems to be a problem—no inhabited locality by this name exists in Kamchatka Krai any longer, but I'll need to check a few more sources to determine when it was abolished (and whether it was an inhabited locality to begin with). I'll keep you posted on that one. Thanks for your help! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Well my encyclopedia is out of date... But you can believe be 110% that Bulkur appears on the encyclopedia atlas with a ring for settlement identical to that of Nordvik (Laptev Sea) west of the town. Nordvik it appears is a former settlement, I am pretty certain Bulkur was once a village, but climate too cold, people abandoned it maybe. The odd thing is that Machevna has the same sized ring as Magadan, you'd think it was a town... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Machevna also called Macnevna. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I by no means disbelieve what you are saying. I'm just saying that we need more information, and that the place no longer exists as of today. By the way, I've just dug up something in my legislative collection—as of 2007, there were three designated (industrial) fishing areas on the left bank of the Bulkur River, but they are not incorporated as an inhabited locality and, by the looks of it, are seasonal. Perhaps there used to be a permanent settlement there, perhaps not—we need more data! I promise to keep looking :)

"Machevna" is also bound to show up in searches, because that's the name of the bay on which the alleged inhabited locality used to stand. I need to do more research on this one, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

Very odd... People moan about the reliability of wikipedia but just goes to show even seemingly reliable major encyclopedias can be questionable. The very odd thing is that the atlas of russia in it only displays a select number of towns and cities, you know settlements you'd think would be of note, and I am 100% certain it labels these places as towns. Oh yes I recall peka meaning river now it was familiar. BTW i would hazard a guess there are not permantely inhabited but are seasonal fishing locations. BTW Bulkur is mapped on the left bank of the Lena. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the encyclopedia you have is pretty outdated; it was not necessarily inaccurate at the time it was published. My sources on renamed/abolished/etc places reliably go back only to the early 1990s, the coverage of anything before that is pretty much haphazard. If a place was abolished in the 1980s, a reference can be quite hard to find. We need to be able to reconcile this in Wikipedia somehow; I just don't think presenting a place as existing based on an entry in the 1980s encyclopedia is a good practice; at least not when it is no longer listed in any modern sources.

On the other hand, why Machevna would be shown of the same size as Magadan, that beats me :) By the 1980s, Magadan was a sizable town already, not to mention the largest in that area.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:16, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is emboldened Magadan so it is shown as more prominent.But Machevna is marked certainly no different from existing urban type settlements we already had article on on here.P..S you might want to check Kezhma, Nevanka, Yukti and Simenga. I won't create any more,but all of these are featured as towns in the encyclopedia. I would have thought there are rural localities though.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kezhma and Nevanka are both villages, not urban-type settlements. Yukti is a red link—did you mean something else? Simenga I can't find at all. Research, research, research, cleanup, cleanup, cleanup :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

Darned Internet connection trouble. Simenga is roughly 250-300 kilometres north of Kurya on the Tunguska river. Shame there aren't ten clones of you to build Russian content on here.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page redlinks

Sorry about removing Gari (Kruševac) from Gari. I neglected to check if it was linked by other articles. I noticed that you cited MOS:DABRL. I know guidelines are constantly changing, but you might want to read it again, as it seems your edits were little different from what it specifies. I have edited Gari again, in keeping with MOS:DABRL is it reads, as well as MOS:DAB overall. ENeville (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually screw up, although not in the DABRL department :) What I did was to replace "Gari, Russia" (which had incoming links) with "Gari, Sverdlovsk Oblast" (which is correct per WP:NC:CITY#Russia), but I got distracted and forgot to change the incoming "Gari, Russia" links to "Gari, Sverdlovsk Oblast". No wonder you removed the latter again. That is now fixed. I also restored the "other rural localities" line (because otherwise the WP:NC:CITY#Russia requirements for the link to the Sverdlovsk Oblast urban-type settlement are not satisfied), but moved it to a dedicated set index (along with the Sverdlovsk Oblast entity), which is now linked to from the dab. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the original mistake, and hopefully the situation is now resolved. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:35, August 18, 2009 (UTC)

New infoboxes

Yes that seems a very good idea. An automatic timezone would definately be a good idea. There is one major issue I have with the pin maps. I think some of the current regional pin maps look really ugly under the oblast locator. I think you should do away with the system you've got set up to control them and ge tthem to function in their own right. Meaning that at present the current map controllers forbid you to add the name of the place on the map unless it is a place where we don't as yet have an oblast locator. In terms of quality I would much rather see a single map like Omsk with the name actually on the map than a big regional map (a lot of them look like a piece of cod LOL) which has a tiny pin and is out of sink with the other locator. When we get our svg map of Russia I think we should just use that plan and simple. People can click the globe anyway for detail. I was wondering also if we could have a colour proposal, we both add a list of colours to use in the infobox and decide the best one. I must admit the green isn't to me taste, I would prefer a steely blue colour like on the oblast template or at least something a little different. I have no objections to the columns any more, you'll be pleased to know. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm as Omsk was before anyway with the name of the place on the map anyway... At present that map is offline and on the left on my PC. The problem is that in white russia the pin covers the the small oblasts and isn't so clear. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like this with white on blue (would at least cover two of the flags colours. Mmm I don't like the default citation needed either it makes the templates look untrustworthy and a mess.

Well, on maps, like I said before, if you can get one on which every location (even in small republics like Ingushetia or Chechnya) would be clearly visible, I'll gladly get rid of the regional maps (or at least make them switchable)—they often make the infobox almost half as long, which is not good.

As for the labels—that problem has been fixed. Did you get a chance to play with the new map_label_position parameter yet? You can set it to right/left/top/bottom (it is none by default), and the label will show up on the applicable locator map (map of Russia if there's only that, or the regional map, if one is available).

On the infobox color, I honestly don't care all that much (I just like green and dislike purple, and green is what used for these boxes on ru_wiki). The only point on colors that I think is very important is that we use different colors for different concepts—at the very least, the inhabited locality infobox should not be of the same color as the federal subject infobox or the infobox for the federal cities and the districts. It'd also be nice to have (slightly?) different colors for cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and rural localities, but that is not that important.

Default citations, those I won't budge on unless a dozen other editors corner me with it and threaten to lynch :) If there is one place where it's important to cite sources, it's the infobox—it is, after all, a brief summary of the most important details in the article, and it should be immediately obvious where the data came from. It's not that hard to reference something, is it? I would argue that if one cannot reference a bit of data in the infobox, then one shouldn't be adding that bit, and if one can't reference anything in an infobox, then one should probably have not been adding such an infobox in the first place. References is not an area which we can ignore because we don't like the "unreferenced" tags—information is either referenced or it's not. When it is not, it should be tagged as such. I think I mentioned this before—there is not a single line in the infobox which cannot be referenced fairly easily. Going through each and every city/town article and referencing the infoboxes is actually on my own to-do list, and fairly high on it at that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, August 24, 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think referencing is important but even on featured place articles we don't have that many citations in the infobox LOL! Maybe take one or two out? Anyway if we can get a good svg map of Russia like the used in Template:Location map Brazil we should make the change then...Himalayan Explorer 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CITE#CHALLENGED, the only kind of information that does not need any referencing is that which cannot be challenged or is not likely to be challenged. The only two parameters which marginally fit this criterion are the federal subject and the official website. Both, however, are already implemented without a mandatory citation tag in absence of any references. All other parameters can, in my opinion, be challenged if unsourced, wouldn't you agree? Not to mention that the easiest way to take out a "citation needed" tag is by providing a citation :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:45, August 24, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it is a huge task to go through all the articles and not only add infoboxes but to find references in Russian for them. How many people on here speak Russian and will know where to find sources? But either way the short stubs with no infoboxes on major towns really should be better, they should at least be start class and with a decent infobox...Himalayan Explorer 16:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If folks were eager enough to add the infoboxes, they should be equally eager to source them, in my opinion. If you (not you personally, mind you) can't source the information you are adding, why would you choose to add it in the first place, especially in large batches? I see absolutely nothing wrong with tagging unsourced information as such—it's in spirit with WP:CITE and should be practiced much more often that it is now.

Note also that any unsourced information can be contested and removed any time—and now that all of the infobox parameters are optional and don't show if empty, removing (or commenting out) unsourced information makes perfect sense. I understand sources can't be added overnight, but if the presence of the "ugly" citation tags gives an additional incentive to add sources, it's only for the better. There is a reason why this tag was created as long as it is in the first place...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, August 24, 2009 (UTC)

So again it comes down to your argument that you should only add infoboxes if you speak Russian as only Russian speakers will be able to understand the sources. As you are not going through the notable articles on major towns and adding infoboxes yourself, somebody has to do it. These articles need a tremendous amount of work, even at basic level providing a map, if I don't work on them, I really don't know too many who will... You've basically said it is pointless adding any infoboxes at all unless they have like at least 10 references. I agree everything should be sourced but I really don#t know too many people who have the time to add infoboxes to each one and at all of the citations required. Himalayan Explorer 08:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try explaining this all over again, since we are obviously having a communication disconnect somewhere. First off, nowhere have I ever said that I was not going to go through these articles and add the information myself. In fact, in this very thread I specifically mentioned that this task is fairly high on my list of priorities. Second, nowhere have I ever said that one should be adding infoboxes "only if one speaks Russian". What I said is that one should probably not be adding infoboxes if one does not have sources to support the information being added. This, to me, is so obvious that I don't even understand why I should continue explaining it, to you of all people. Third, finding references for major places (like top 100 in this list) is not all that difficult whether you know Russian or not. For large Russian cities plenty of high-quality information is available in English. It might be somewhat outdated, but as long as it is referenced properly it is not that big of a deal; what's important is that it is referenced at all. Fourth, nowhere in WP:CITE does it say that references should only be added when one "has time" to add them. If you are adding something, you should be prepared to produce references when asked to, or be willing to see your addition tagged as "unreferenced" (because "unreferenced" is what it is!). However, for some reason I don't quite understand you seem to object to tagging unreferenced bits as such. Why? Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) don't have time to reference something right this minute means that a reference should not be asked for at all? I don't think so. Fifth, as you I hope have noticed, one can now add an infobox with very little available data—the pieces which are missing simply would not show up. You don't have to have "ten references" to add an infobox; the situation now is in fact directly opposite of what it was with the old infobox where most of the parameters always showed up, empty or not. If all you have is coordinates and the federal subject, that's all that's needed to produce a usable infobox with a map. If you have more data, they must have come from somewhere, so what's the problem with indicating where they were taken from? If you don't have time to add the reference, add the unreferenced piece and come back to add a reference when time allows. In the meanwhile, the infobox will tag this piece as unreferenced automatically, thus saving other users time they would otherwise spend tagging it manually and overall Wikipedia load would be reduced because bots will have one less piece of unreferenced information to tag.

I hope this explains my position succinctly enough. If not, my suggestion for you would be to open an RfC to solicit additional opinions (no, I won't hold a grudge whatever the outcome; it is business, after all :)). It is my understanding that identifying and tagging unreferenced information is a good thing, and when it can be automatically done without much effort, it's even better yet. If I am mistaken in this understanding of mine, the RfC will hopefully make it clear. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, August 25, 2009 (UTC)

I understand a little better now. Of course I think the information in the infoboxes should all be sourced, it was more a concern about sources not being available in english so most editors will find it difficult to find them..That is not to say that is a valid reason for them not to be sourced, rather it will entail a big workload for users such as yourself to sort out, time I doubt you have. If it is a priority for you to go through them, great! What I was trying to say basically, is that I don't want to feel like I am placing a burden on you by adding infoboxes and map which I think are useful but might not be able to find sources in Russian and you feeling that you have to "cleanup" after me. I'm sure you see what I mean. Himalayan 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only person who placed a burden on me (and the person who does it best) is... me. Still, this if this is the area I have chosen to work on Wikipedia, I'd better be prepared to come up with those sources if no one else can, especially if it was me who "requested" them (via infobox design) in the first place eh? :) All in all, it's no burden at all if you add an infobox (or a hundred) which is (are) mostly empty. That's the very reason why empty lines are now suppressed—so mostly empty boxes would not overwhelm short stubs. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, August 25, 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy sorry I seemed a little blunt, but I just didn't want you to see my goals to add infoboxes with maps and basic data population etc as a bad thing. Our goal should be to get all the articles on uban type settlements/towns up to at least start class, all consisently with infoboxes (and referenced data!!). I much appreciate your recent efforts towards these infoboxes.. Himalayan 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings on my end. In the past, my concern with adding empty infoboxes was only due to the fact that those infoboxes tended to be up to ten times longer that actual stubs without adding anything useful; now an empty infobox amounts to a (useful!) map, while the empty cruft is suppressed. I hope you enjoy this new infobox and will let me know promptly if you have any problems with it. I still need to write the shells and add the timezones, but after that I'm planning to leave those infoboxes alone for a while :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, August 25, 2009 (UTC)

Инфобоксы городов англ

Обратил внимание что во всех городах в инфобоксе города появились пометки требующие ссылок на источник по всем данным содержащимся в инфобоксе. Изменение не отразилось в истории ни по одной из страниц, поэтому подозреваю, что изменился шаблон. Если так, то с какой целью внесено изменение? И встает первый и гравный вопрос, а как именно ссылаться то? Все внесенные мной инфобоксы содержат ссылки на официальные сайты городов, по которым проверяется актуальность информации + строчка населения берется с сайта статистического управления- теперь что нужно давать построчно ссылки на конкретные разделы сайта? Так там 3/4 строк данных заполняются по стат листку города из раздела about city т.е. в одном инфобоксе при таком подходе будет до десятка ссылок на одну и ту же страницу официального сайта, а то и вообще на корень который и сам идет строкой того же инфобокса?!Вобщем я не знаю чео хотели, наверно как лучше, но получилось похоже как всегда... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Если честно, я не очень понимаю, почему это проблема. В отличие от русской википедии (в которой в основном вообще редко понятно, откуда что было взято), для любой информации в Википедии английской должен быть указан источник. Если источник не указан, информация помечается как "unsourced". Как по-другому то? Вы вот, например, берёте информацию с официальных сайтов, я — из первичных документов (устав, законодательство), кто-то ещё — из вторичных источников на английском. Если не указывать источник, что тогда делать нашим читателям — смотреть историю правок и спрашивать каждого участника индивидуально откуда он взял информацию?

Добавить источник вообще вовсе несложно. Взяли вы, например, информацию с офсайта:

param1=something from the official website

добавьте источник:

param1_ref=<ref name="Website">Official website of Nsk. [http:www.example.ru/stats.html Statistics].</ref>

Если та же самая страница используется в качестве источника для другого параметра, то тут тоже всё стандартно:

param2=something else from the official website

param2_ref=<ref name="Website" />

Если сайт тот же, но страница другая, то тогда да, надо ссылку делать отдельно:

param3=something from a different page on that same website

param3_ref=<ref name="WebsitePage2">Official website of Nsk. [http://www.example.ru/someotherpage.html Some other statistics]</ref>

Принцип, в общем, очень прост, и относится не только к данному инфобоксу, но и к Википедии в целом — не хотите/не можете/лень добавлять источник, не добавляйте. Если при этом глаз режет "citation needed", то не добавляйте параметр вообще. В новом инфобоксе, в отличие от старого, все незаполненные параметры (кроме субъекта Федерации) автоматически прячутся.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, August 24, 2009 (UTC)

Nested template calls

Hi, I saw your post about your template troubles. I would be happy to try to help you sort it out. However, I tried to read the code in the linked template and I had no idea where to start looking to see exactly what you were talking about. Can you show me the problem in action, or provide a more simple specific example? I believe the problem you are having is with unintended whitespace being passed as something other than a nullstring. The #if: processor can be used to strip this sort of thing, which it appears you are using. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help offer! I tried constructing two simple templates to illustrate the error, and for the life of me I can't reproduce it. Which makes me think the problem is not what I asked help with (IRIL when called via a different template still does not behave as intended). I'll need some time to figure out where exactly I am screwing it all up. Would it be OK if I contact you directly when I figure that out?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, August 27, 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know and I will help if I can. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Thanks for the warning Ezhiki, better late than never!! :P I thought they might have changed as I thought they looked a little different, but I looked at the boxes for Anadyr, Pevek and Bilibino and they were the same and I hadn't seen any announcement on wp:russia so I took a chance. Personally I think making the info boxes more widely useable is a good thing making the articles more attractive to the casual reader. I'll try to make use of them! Fenix down (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes which are already in place wouldn't have changed much, because I was shooting for backward compatibility—re-designing an infobox and then having to go through over a hundred pages trying to change old stuff is no fun at all! The only parameters that suffered were "Events"—those are no longer supported. MunStatus and InJurisdictionOf have also been deprecated in favor of new parameters, but are still supported for compatibility reasons. Other than that, the only change you'd see is forced citation requests and disappearance of the fields which are not populated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:23, August 27, 2009 (UTC)

More Infoboxes

Dorogoi Ezhik

can you please add the following to the infobox,

1. town status - i.e when city status was granted 2. Time zone

I like the previous names section

Alan

The first one is actually already implemented—it's called current_cat_date and is supposed to hold the date on which the inhabited locality was granted its status (so, for cities it would be the date city status was granted, for urban-type settlements—the date on which that status was granted, etc.). The reference for this parameter goes into current_cat_date_ref. The status itself is recorded in the inhabloc_cat field. Novosibirsk is one article where you can see this used in practice.

Time zones is something I am currently working on. When implemented, this field will be populated automatically, so no extra work (and room for error!) is going to be created for our editors.

If you can think of anything else, please don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:13, August 28, 2009 (UTC)

Kiev Passenger Railway Station

Could you please look into how and why this article has been renamed. Garik 11 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't so much a renaming as it was a copy-paste move from one title to another. I have reverted it and placed both titles on my watchlist to prevent future incidents. Thanks for catching that!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, August 28, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, unexplained copy-paste. Thanks for your prompt action. Garik 11 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev/R\Kyiv

OK. But Kyiv was always ukrainian city. What you means? Kiev is russian transcription. --Victor Korniyenko (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean transliteration, not transcription? Anyway, the "Kiev" spelling is neither. It is a commonly accepted English name of the city which serves as the capital of Ukraine. The origins of the word are pretty much irrelevant; the important thing is that's what's predominantly used in English texts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, August 31, 2009 (UTC)

Shield

I saw this whilst cleaning up some Latvian City infoboxes and thought of you. Cheers. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just too funny :) Thanks for sharing!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, August 31, 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Administrative divisions of federal subjects of Russia

Tower of St. Olav

Привет. Вот написал неплохую статью, хотел попросить в проекте WikiProject Military history проверить статью. Но там всё так сложно. Попроси их проверить английский и выставить статью на рецензию. (не срочно)--Andrey! 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to from here?

As per the subject, I am absolutely astounded by the amount of conflicting information. First I am told that Putin is covered, then I am told it isn't. First I am told that I couldn't go to WP:AE, then I am told that I can. Then I am told that High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve‎ is regarded as part of the history of Russia, but am told that the Duma list isn't as it is current. What the hell? And where does one take it? --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I was watching this for the past few days, and at a certain point of ridiculousness I just couldn't stay uninvolved any more. While I refuse to dig deep into the circumstances that lead to this ban (feel free to go to the ArbComm, if you believe the ban, however it is worded, is undeserved), the way the ban itself is being handled is giving me pause. If I were in Sandstein's place I would probably be quite eager to get rid of this case by now myself, but there are still certain limits that need to be observed. I don't believe that a ban coverage should be extended with the only reason being because one cannot phrase it better or more logically. If one can't handle some of his or her administrative duties properly, one shouldn't get involved in the first place. Wikipedia is not ruled by troikas just yet; we have some procedures in place that need to be properly observed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Category emptied out of process

Please see the message I posted at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Categories emptied out of process, which concerns your recent renaming of a category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Russ! Thanks for the note.

If you got a chance to look at my userpage, you've probably seen that proper process is something I am a big fan of. However, I am not a fan of process for the sake of process (wow, I've just noticed that Kotniski said exact same thing, word-to-word). If you look at the category in question closer, you will see that I was the person who created it in the first place and, apart from an IP adding an interwiki link and one other editor (more on that one below), I was the only person who ever edited it. Every single article in that category was placed there by me. The articles themselves are all written by me as well. I am pretty much the only person who works in this subject area on Wikipedia. And last but not least, the only other person who remotely showed an interest in this category, relegated handling of it to me. In my opinion, the situation was as straightforward and uncontroversial as a situation can possibly get. Judging from your CfD post, you yourself don't seem to disagree either, which, I guess, kind of leaves me puzzled as to the purpose of your post.

Don't get me wrong, though. You, as any other editor, have full rights to question any edit/action of mine. If my handling of the category out of process makes you feel uncomfortable (be it for certain reasons you have not yet divulged, your just for the peace of heart), I will gladly re-create and re-populate it and send it on its merry way through the proper CfD channels. I just want to let you know that a situation like this is not something you can't talk to me first before making an official inquiry elsewhere. I am usually pretty open to inquiries from fellow editors :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:18, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Scarlet Sails

Привет! Здесь в моё поле зрения попала статья Scarlet Sails, я для связности поставил {{Scarlet Sails}}. Участник User:Drigioni так расстроился, что до сих пор откатывает мои правки из статей Dmitry Koldun и Serebro. К сожалению, он не утруждает себя комментариями, что же его так не устроило. Если есть настроение, отследи ситуацию. Если его не устраивает, пускай выставляет шаблон к удалению.--Andrey! 19:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotovsky

I have no wish to disrupt the work of WP:RUSSIA, but will the red links at Kotovsky (disambiguation) be turned blue in a reasonable time? PatGallacher (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it right away, if you wish; it's not a problem. All in all, however, there are many more pages like this one, and the backlinks the entries on these pages generate are invaluable to organizing the workflow effectively. The pages get taken care of over time, by the way, so it's not like there is an intent to keep them that way forever :) Problem is, while it is possible to improve any given page upon request, they cannot all be improved during a short period of time, so inevitably situations like the one with Kotovsky dab pop up every now and then. Hope you understand. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Why Santiago de los Caballeros Province?

For your information, the Dominican laws on the territory (Law No. 4400 of March 9, 1956 and Law No. 5220 of Septembre 21, 1959) state that the name of the province is "Santiago"; just like that, without anything else. And both state that the capital city of that province is "Santiago de los Caballeros". So, why did you change the original name for another that does not exist under the Dominican laws? --Jmarcano (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, José! Actually, I have not changed the name of the article; it's been at Santiago de los Caballeros since 2008, where it was moved from Santiago Province (Dominican Republic) by copy-paste (instead of a proper move). All I did was to merge both articles, and left the end result at "Santiago de los Caballeros", because that's where it's been for the past year or so.

If you believe that title is incorrect, please feel free to be bold and move it to a proper location or, if you are uncomfortable doing it, you can list it at WP:RM instead. Having fixed the problem with copy-paste, I have no further interest in that article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:12, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Article names for Russian railway stations

Uvazhayemye Ezhiki: I am inviting you, as a "guardian of uniformity" in article naming, to comment on my suggestion at Talk:Moskovsky_Rail_Terminal. I am used to thinking of Grand Central Terminal as being a "terminal" because all trains terminate there (it's the end of all tracks), and New York Penn Station being just a "station" because trains can continue through it in either direction. By this logic, I think"terminal" may not be the best word to use in the name of "non-terminal" Russian trains stations... I don't have strong feelings on that matter either way, but I would like not to have to rename wiki articles or Commons categories for all those stations after they have been created. Feel free to invite anyone else who's interested to comment at that talk page. Vmenkov (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing order to the articles about Russian railway stations/terminals is something I've been eyeballing for the past several years and never found time to get involved with. Of course I'll be more than happy to assist in whatever way I can, if you need help.

I have posted a comment to your proposal. May I suggest you also move it to where it would be more visible for people to comment on and extend the scope of the proposal to include Wikipedia's naming convention for Russian stations/terminals, and not just the Commons? WT:RUSSIA is probably not a bad place to start. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:39, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Fact

Articles with unsourced statements

(refresh)

Subtotals
February 2007	934
March 2007	269
April 2007	401
May 2007	479
June 2007	631
July 2007	544
August 2007	586
September 2007	549
October 2007	630
November 2007	605
December 2007	691
January 2008	784
February 2008	697
March 2008	864
April 2008	757
May 2008	774
June 2008	787
July 2008	878
August 2008	834
September 2008	812
October 2008	874
November 2008	826
December 2008	935
January 2009	1,004
February 2009	697
March 2009	1,214
April 2009	1,066
May 2009	1,051
June 2009	1,071
July 2009	1,136
August 2009	1,108
September 2009	1,133
October 2009	1,095
November 2009	1,084
December 2009	986
January 2010	1,475
February 2010	1,138
March 2010	833
April 2010	1,733
May 2010	1,427
June 2010	949
July 2010	1,554
August 2010	1,233
September 2010	1,344
October 2010	3,708
November 2010	1,536
December 2010	1,419
January 2011	1,576
February 2011	1,358
March 2011	1,433
April 2011	1,400
May 2011	1,419
June 2011	1,469
July 2011	1,450
August 2011	1,607
September 2011	1,721
October 2011	1,458
November 2011	1,519
December 2011	1,510
January 2012	1,680
February 2012	1,477
March 2012	1,581
April 2012	1,649
May 2012	1,617
June 2012	1,525
July 2012	1,667
August 2012	1,785
September 2012	1,547
October 2012	1,563
November 2012	1,620
December 2012	1,635
January 2013	1,823
February 2013	1,604
March 2013	1,674
April 2013	1,724
May 2013	1,653
June 2013	1,688
July 2013	1,579
August 2013	1,718
September 2013	1,496
October 2013	1,705
November 2013	1,635
December 2013	1,591
January 2014	1,841
February 2014	1,632
March 2014	1,742
April 2014	1,685
May 2014	1,761
June 2014	1,567
July 2014	1,652
August 2014	1,638
September 2014	1,754
October 2014	1,700
November 2014	1,704
December 2014	1,711
January 2015	1,802
February 2015	1,828
March 2015	1,986
April 2015	1,995
May 2015	2,010
June 2015	2,072
July 2015	2,101
August 2015	2,142
September 2015	1,998
October 2015	2,302
November 2015	1,919
December 2015	2,058
January 2016	2,286
February 2016	2,086
March 2016	2,090
April 2016	2,094
May 2016	2,137
June 2016	1,903
July 2016	1,899
August 2016	2,131
September 2016	2,188
October 2016	2,014
November 2016	2,266
December 2016	2,430
January 2017	2,577
February 2017	2,161
March 2017	2,323
April 2017	2,358
May 2017	2,500
June 2017	2,341
July 2017	2,313
August 2017	2,374
September 2017	2,230
October 2017	2,676
November 2017	2,273
December 2017	2,693
January 2018	2,789
February 2018	2,691
March 2018	2,500
April 2018	2,826
May 2018	2,804
June 2018	2,819
July 2018	2,785
August 2018	2,790
September 2018	2,621
October 2018	2,577
November 2018	2,443
December 2018	2,783
January 2019	3,327
February 2019	3,127
March 2019	3,102
April 2019	2,838
May 2019	2,909
June 2019	2,836
July 2019	3,016
August 2019	3,306
September 2019	3,082
October 2019	3,072
November 2019	3,562
December 2019	3,764
January 2020	4,167
February 2020	4,704
March 2020	3,912
April 2020	4,756
May 2020	5,564
June 2020	6,058
July 2020	5,453
August 2020	5,461
September 2020	4,614
October 2020	6,535
November 2020	5,099
December 2020	5,231
January 2021	5,461
February 2021	4,569
March 2021	5,436
April 2021	4,784
May 2021	5,527
June 2021	4,923
July 2021	5,273
August 2021	5,455
September 2021	5,064
October 2021	5,498
November 2021	5,512
December 2021	5,580
January 2022	5,315
February 2022	4,855
March 2022	5,631
April 2022	5,056
May 2022	5,671
June 2022	6,036
July 2022	6,363
August 2022	7,485
September 2022	5,725
October 2022	6,820
November 2022	6,234
December 2022	6,290
January 2023	7,199
February 2023	5,606
March 2023	6,871
April 2023	6,665
May 2023	7,334
June 2023	6,679
July 2023	7,121
August 2023	7,025
September 2023	6,589
October 2023	6,673
November 2023	7,741
December 2023	7,875
January 2024	8,042
February 2024	8,127
March 2024	8,254
April 2024	7,376
May 2024	8,399
June 2024	8,803
July 2024	8,684
August 2024	9,197
September 2024	9,268
October 2024	11,834
November 2024	20,812
Undated articles	9

All articles

661,903

Ok the idea you suggest is great except that all the uses of {{Fact}} (actaully{{Citation needed}}) would have the current date. There was an infobox that had a date: {{Infobox OS}} or similar. It was fairly low usages so I simply dated all the "facts" with the same date. the other solution is what the football templates do, which is line by line, so Ican pick these up - see for example {{Fb rbr pos footer}}. Certainly there should be no "fact" template generated unless there is actual data. it may make more sense simply to tag the articles - I have done this in Omsk. Note that is its not possible to tag the co-ords, the area or the population, or indeed to footnote them. Another possiblity is to simply have a footnotes section and default that to a {{Fact}} tag. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'll definitely take a look at the football template and get back to you on that; thanks for the pointer. By the way, {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} does not generate a fact tag when there are no data to attach it to. Also, the area and the population (the most recent, at least; Census number is referenced automatically as there is only one source where that number can be taken from) in that infobox can be referenced just as any other factoid—could you, please, clarify what you mean by saying it's not possible to tag them?

Regarding the fact templates all having the current date (were the autodating to be implemented), that's a good point, but I don't see it as a problem all that much. What your bot is basically doing is adding the current date to undated fact tags anyway; regardless of when those tags were actually added, right?

No. It is technically "regardless" but practically it is within 24 or 48 hours of the tag being added. You see an undated "fact" tag,for example adds a page to Category:Articles with unsourced statements. The bot processes these articles - pretty much every day - and dates the tags, which moves them into the Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Implementing autodating would do exact same thing, all at once, and it's only going to be a one-time surge (from then on, all undated fact tags would have proper dates due to automation). Any tags that had previously been dated by editors or by the bot would remain unchanged. Am I misunderstanding something here? Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Suppose an article has a fact tag with no date, added today. Currently it would say September 2009. Come 1st October your "fact/dates" file would change and the apparently undated tag would then say October 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

But that's the whole point of having the current date on a separate page and then updating that page every month. The fact tag would substitute the value on that subpage as the value of the "date=" parameter (so the tag added in September would show "September" in perpetuity). Come October, the bot would change the subpage to read "October 2009", so the new tags would be autodated October, and the older tags would remain unaffected. Does that make sense?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

I get the idea behind it, and there have been similar things, like {subst:DATE} and of course you can have a hot-key that pastes {CURRENTMONTHNAME} etc.. bsiclly you are either transcluding or subst-ing. But the problem is people want to be able to simply type {cn}. However even if that could work (there is/was a feature request for a self subst-ing template, but I think it was turned down) what date would we use on the infobox template? Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The short answer is no, not with the current software, or making people type "subst:". Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me, Rich. I think the realization of the impossibility of the implementation is slowly starting to sink in :( Self-substituting templates would indeed be most helpful in this case. I guess all I can say at this point is "so much for that idea". Oh well.

This brings me to my other point, though. What is your position on the importance of dating the fact tags? The way I see it, the purpose of WP:REF is to make sure that all statements are referenced, and those which are not referenced are either tagged or removed. Dating the fact tags is, of course, helpful in maintenance, as well as in identifying long expired unsourced statements which should probably be removed, but this is not something our core policies specify as a "must-do". If statements in infoboxes (not necessarily just in this one) can't be traced back to the text (which, I should add, they often can't be), surely we must take care to tag them accordingly? Otherwise, why ask referencing anything at all?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Well the importance of cn (or fact) tagging is to get the statement referenced (or possibly removed). An undated tag risks hanging around forever. The progress box on the right shows that they do hang around a long time anyway. And if we go with "every statement must be tagged if uncited" that is a bit pointless, because the mere lack of a citation would suffice. Essentially the tagging exercise would simply move from having two sorts of statements, referenced and unreferenced, to two sorts of statements referenced and tagged. That's why I think tagging needs to be reserved, even with dates, to statements where there is some reasonable grounds for asking for an in-line reference. Also form my point of view, every undated fact tag is an article that SmackBot hits every time it does a dating run and attempts to date. Typically it processes a thousand or so articles a day, if there were 5 or 10 thousand it couldn't deal with it would start to struggle. Moreover I use the ones it can't deal with as exemplars to improve its processing. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You are quite right that tagging every single statement is pointless, because the mere lack of reference would suffice. That, however, is not what WP:REF asks for. WP:REF asks to tag every single statement that is "challenged or can potentially be challenged". It is, of course, a rather broad definition still, but WP:REF also says that statements which are patently obvious or well-known ("Moon orbits the Earth", for example) do not need to be either referenced or tagged. You don't seem to disagree with that and reserve tagging to statements where reasonable grounds for asking references exist. Now, let me ask you this: when looking at {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}, do you see any parameters for which asking a reference is unreasonable? When I was designing that infobox, I identified the following fields as those which probably don't need to be referenced: coordinates, flag/coat of arms, federal subject (in jurisdiction of which the place is located), and the official website. Coordinates can be verified by using one of the many map services we are linking to, the flag and the coat of arms are images which we don't normally reference (if there is an accompanying article, the references would be available there anyway), the federal subject is pretty obvious from the coordinates, and a website is a website—one can check its merits on one's own. The last two can, however, still be referenced if one so desires (I myself usually do), but a fact tag won't show up if they are left unreferenced. Everything else (administrative data, municipal data, stats, foundation date, previous names, postal/dialing code) is very much questionable when unsourced. That's the sole reason why I didn't think of the fact tags being left undated as of much of a problem—it's untagged and unsourced data that bother me the most!

By the way, I personally very rarely skip the references when working on the articles about places in Russia. I, however, am not the one responsible for the absolute majority of the infoboxes currently placed. We've got some "serial infoboxers", if you will, who'd copy-paste a box across dozens of articles, sometimes forgetting to change something as basic as the name of a place. If forceful showing of the "citation needed" tags discourages them from doing that, or if it encourages them to actually go through and find the sources, I see it only as a benefit. And of course I make a point to go through the unreferenced articles in the area I am working on and to supply the actual references (Novosibirsk is one example).

I understand that your concern is choking of the unsourced/undated articles cat with thousands of articles because of this infobox. That, however, is not something I believe will happen. There are about 150,000 populated places in Russia, but only ~1,000 or so are cities/towns. Most of those cities/towns were using {{Infobox Russian city}}, which the new infobox has now replaced. The majority of unsourced statements come directly from the articles which used the old infobox. The old infobox had plenty of parameters which showed up whether they were filled out or not, so naturally people tended to fill them out (often with garbage, I might add). With the new infobox, there is only one required field; everything else can be safely omitted. If one is to add a box only with the name of the place, its federal subject, and the coordinates, there isn't going to be any "citation needed" tags generated as a result. I just don't see the undated category continuing to grow indefinitely; what you are observing is chiefly the result of migration of one template. Does that make you feel any better?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:58, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is workable, if not perfect. It is a pain to have a field not called "date" when 492 other templates use "date". Also infoboxes are a heck of a lot more complex than most maintenance tags. I think you see the rest of the drawbacks as well as I. So the next question is how do you add a ref? Is there a ref field for each main field? Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It can be called "date", too. Other "date" fields in the infobox are "holiday", "adm_data_as_of", "mun_data_as_of", "area_as_of", "pop_latest_date", "established_date", "current_cat_date", "prev_name1_date" (1 through 5), and "abolished_date", but we can document a parameter called "date" proper as the date on which the infobox is being filled out. I only suggested "factdate" because it's more descriptive; "date" proper works just as well.

As for the references, yes, each field that is supposed to be referenced has an equivalent field for the reference, which is the same name plus "_ref" (e.g., federal_subject vs. federal_subject_ref, pop_latest vs pop_latest_ref, etc.).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:38, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

It's done. the other infobox is {{Infobox OS version}}, works in the same way. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks a bunch! If I happen to think of a more elegant solution, I will most certainly run it by you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issues

It is ridiculous to have even the header reading "Urban type settlement" (citation needed). If you insist on keep all of the fact tags at least remove the one from the header it looks almost like a satrical infobox. I'm also not not happy with the way you've locked the template when it barely ever gets edited or vandalised, it is against the spirit of wikipedia. Himalayan 13:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Without a reference, how can you be 100% sure whether a place in an urban-type settlement, a town, a village, or any of other fifty-plus types of localities? Most people don't even know the difference between an urban-type settlement and a "small town", and yet you say that something like that should not be referenced?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be referenced inside the infobox below but I have never seen a referenced inside a banner like we have at the moment. If you must have a reference for settlement type it should go under neath in a settlement type = setting. Himalayan 13:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem suppressing the banner at the top and moving this information to within the infobox until such time when all these instances are referenced. I should also note that it takes about one minute to reference that particular factoid in any given article. Instead of hiding our incompetence/laziness, shouldn't we strive to actually add the references instead?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:03, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its laziness from you or I really. I just think finding so many references, which mostly will only be in Russian is problematic, given the few who speak Russian. While this isn't an excuse to be lazy and ignore references it makes it exceedingly tought for non Russian speaking editors to try to reference every infobox they add. I don't think it is possible for non Russian speaking editors to reference them and that makes the vast majority and even the few who do speak Russian are not working on the infoboxes. It is only you and I and another editor who adds some occasionally. It makes it a mountain of a task... Himalayan 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this is precisely why the articles using the format of the old (city-only) infobox have "inhabited locality" turned on in the infobox by default... and it doesn't flash "citation needed" needlessly either (see Dalnegorsk, for example). The problem in reality is far less in scope than you seem to believe? The locality type in the banner is filled out by the new "inhabloc_cat" parameter; if one uses it to replace the default "inhabited locality" specifier, one might as well find a reference to go with it. Otherwise, the default specifier works just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the infobox for Dalnegorsk. I just think you should maybe replicate it for the otherand state at the top and state in the infobox underneath to avoid have a fact tag placed in the banner. Your choice.. Himalayan 16:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what's "okaced"? Sometimes you type way too fast :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's my take on the issue of having a "citation needed" tag displayed next to town/urban-type settlement/rural locality designation in the banner. If one wants to make oneself useful and add an infobox to an article, one can gather all the information one has access to and pack it neatly into the infobox. If one doesn't know the exact category an inhabited locality falls under, one can leave that piece out, in which case the banner will display "inhabited locality" (without "citation needed"). If one does want to clarify the specific category, one should be prepared to back up his or her claim with sources. That goes for any piece of information, really, not just for stuff people add to infoboxes. In other words, if you say that a place is a "town", please kindly support that claim. If you can't/don't have time/don't have sources/can't be bothered, then please kindly either accept the fact that it's going to be tagged as unsourced and, if that's not an option, just do not add that claim at all. As you know, any unsourced claim can be removed if references can't be provided. You are welcome to remove the unsourced designations from the infoboxes if you find the citation request too obtrusive—that doesn't require much time at all and it is everyone's right to remove uncited information on sight if it is believed to be detrimental to the quality of the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Pl for Placed typo on the ok and k, the next keys. Himalayan 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not on my keyboard, so I couldn't figure it out :) What do you say in response to the rest of the rant, though?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that you have now set the empty paramters to default. I was thinking that you still had them default open. At least they can be worked on in stages.... We definately need to go through every raion and ensure at least the main urban type settlements have infoboxes and referenced data and try to get them up to start class... Himalayan 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously can't disagree with that :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:21, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if people dropped creation stubs on lower league Russian footballers like Aleksandr Romanenko and helped fill out our stubs on towns we might get somewhere eh? I'd bet a million bucks that that stub will still be a stub this time next year.. Himalayan 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but you are forgetting we are all volunteers here. If one doesn't give a damn about Russian towns but is interested in soccer, who are we to order them otherwise? In contrast, I am sure there are a million things more important than minor Russian towns that we could be improving instead :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

If these people are that interested in Russian soccer, why then don't they actually write them into articles? So and so born 1994 is a Russian soccer player from Division 6 of the Russian Football League. Return to the page at Christmas 2011 and they are still a Division 6 Russian soccer player but are now 17 years old rather than 15 years old. I disagree with you that articles on main Russian towns are not important. I'm talking about towns which evne appear on basic atlases that should be beyond stub/start class level at the moment but nobody is working on them. What you've just said illustrates to me that you don't think these articles on Russian towns are priority or even important for WP:Russia, they are likely to remain so with that outlook. Himalayan 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying minor Russian towns aren't important (or why would I choose to waste enormous amounts of my own time working on them?), I said there are other things which are more important (and which we could choose to edit instead). Like larger Russian towns, for example. Or an overview article about the administrative divisions of Russia (which are different in every federal subject). Or this not-so-little project which I mostly abandoned after getting to 1764 for perfectly good reasons a couple years ago. One chooses to work on what one has means to work on. I do have means to work on the articles about something like Vladimirsky Lager, but we can't assume everyone else does. If someone tells you to drop whatever it is you are doing and go work on an important area thataway, what are the chances you'll listen? Maybe the soccer players' stubs will get expanded, maybe they won't. Let's assume good faith here and trust that the guy's in charge got a plan. If he doesn't, having a stub in place is still better than nothing; at least he is going through them methodically without creating a nightmarish maintenance overhead (at least no one has yet complained).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:21, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to tell him to drop what he was doing and go work on Russian towns instead? No, it is up to him what he wants to edit. It was more an expression of frustration how a high proportion of editors only pay attention to popular culture and sport rather than more traditional subjects on geography and history etc get ignored in many parts so we end up with an encyclopedia highly disproportional and biased in terms of general content. I'm not saying we shouldn't have articles on Russian footballers or that he wasn't working in good faith, its just when you see articles even on Russian cities which are poorly referenced even stubs in places it does get a little frustrating that there aren't more editors working on them and they think it more of a priority to mention lower league footballers instead. To me it is kind of like having a "WikiProject Football in the Vale of Glamorgan" and not even having a WikiProject Wales if you see what I mean. The problem is that we are volunteers and popular culture and sport are what a lot of people are only interested in. If Jimbo offered incentives to people to improve articles on core subjects which at present are lacking and are unedited it might generate more interest.... Himalayan 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? If you want peace of mind for yourself, I suggest you stop worrying about other people focusing on all the wrong things :) I'm with you on the theory of it, but I don't see what can be done about it in practice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

I know, that's why I'm complaining about it LOL! There is nothing we can do about it, I feel the same about the way hundreds of editors will spend hours at ANI in some wiki drama on a daily basis yet rarely if ever edit a mainspace article. I just feel that the amount of real collaboration and coordination on here that goes on in developing the site overall in many areas in terms of actual content and consistency is very poor. More people seem to want to work against one another than actually working as a team... Himalayan 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to consider another stub article

Would you like to consider creating п. Владимирский Лагерь Псковская обл. ? It's an army base for a recently upgraded unit - might be useful. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Enjoy! I trust you'll be taking care of the army base portion from here?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ezhiki. Yes I'll take care of the military aspect. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ezhiki. I know you haven't done so much work on Chechniya as elsewhere, but could you help me with finding Borzoi/Borzoy? I cannot locate it within a raion or elsewhere, and eng:WP doesn't have an article on it. Where is it exactly? Thanks awfully.. Buckshot06(prof) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - appreciate the quick response! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize it wasn't me who replied? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:30, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I assumed 'NVO' was a declared sock which you used to deliver messages to others' talk pages. OK, I'll go and thank him. Do you actually do any Chechniya geo articles? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, NVO would not be pleased with such groundless accusations and all. You'd better hurry and thank him quick :)

As for Chechnya, I don't really do any geo-articles, but it doesn't mean you can't ask me to try if you have a specific one in mind. I don't have many sources for Chechnya (although I have some), but I can always do a search in hopes to find something something interesting. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but if it does, you'll get yourself a stub to at least start with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ezhiki. It's really up to you and your estimation of the importance of Borzoi. If you think it's important enough to warrant an article, please put it on your list of things to do. Otherwise don't worry. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all places in Russia are important enough to warrant an article. It's just that some are more important than others :) I'll see what else I can find on Borzoy, and if it turns out not to be much, I won't be creating one in the foreseeable future. Incidentally, how much would you be able to add to it if a stub is started?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:39, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Very little, unfortunately. Just the notation that's its the home of a motor rifle regiment of the 42nd Motor Rifle Division, and possibly other military details later. However there may have been some fighting there during the two wars that could be added. Buckshot06(prof) 21:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

SmackBot uses this rule {{(Infobox Russian inhabited locality)((?:\|\s*(?:(?:text|reason|category|discuss|topic|en_name|EnglishName|ru_name|RussianName|ru_name... ...|PostalCode|postal_codes|PostalCode|postal_codes_ref|dialing_codes|DialingCode|dialing_codes|DialingCode|DialingCode2|DialingCode2|dialing_codes_ref|website|Website|website_ref|website|Website)\s*=[^\|}]*|[^\|}=]*))*)}} (which could be smarter I know) to find a match to add a date parameter. It fails maybe because there is junk in the template like "AreaRank". Hm or maybe not. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I'm not very good with regex expressions.

Why not just specify templates which contain "Russian inhabited locality/city/town/etc." (basically, all redirects that point to the template)

The above takes care of simple additions, I have other rules which fix up stuff like "fate=July 2009" "date=2009 July" etc. These work on a list of templates something like

{(fact|... 492 other templates|Infobox Russian inhabited locality)\|<some horrible regex>

If I did not take rdirects out of the equation it would be

{(fact|... 2378 other templates|Infobox Russian inhabited locality)\|<some horrible regex>

With the tags I generally work on the replacement by the trarget template is usually a good thing anyway.

and then add "|date=month year" right before the closing curlies? Why do you need to list every possible parameter in the regex?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:01, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Because I want to check that there is no date=field already there. Actually I think its falling over on Republic of Tatarstan. This may be worth coding around. That is what I meant when I said Infoboxes were more complex - tags generally have maybe 2 or 3 possible parameters, while I think it can be coded more efficiently (in terms of shorter code) and it would save me work, that way of doing it picks up invalid parameters in templates. It doesn't allow for embedded links or nested templates and the like. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

None of the above means that I can't change the way this works, it just explains why it is as it is. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, I get your point. Is there anything I can help with?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:00, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

Act II, scene ii; specifically these lines therein. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. I don't agree with it, but I get it :) Thanks for taking time to explain.

Incidentally, I still think that using {{Infobox Settlement}} in articles about administrative divisions (but for some inexplicable reason not countries?) is akin to proposing to use {{Infobox Biomass}} in all articles about plants, mushrooms, animals, and human beings, only instead of "biomass" the infobox would be called {{Infobox Tree}} (because it's shorter, see?).

In addition, I don't know how much editing experience hides behind your IP mask, but if you had a chance to see what crazy and stupid things do with templates that have too generic titles, you'd be much less inclined to quote Shakespeare to support your view. Not that you aren't entitled to your point of view, of course you are :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:40, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally posted this to my talk page instead of yours. Apologies if you have already read it.

"Settlements" and "administrative divisions" aren't all that different from a metadata perspective, which is what goes in the infobox. They both have populations, they both have some form of government, etc. There's enough overlap that it makes sense to use the one template with lots of optional parameters. You could call it {{Infobox settlement, administrative division or other subnational entity}} (since arguably "settlement" is inappropriate for ghost towns). You could also call it {{stacey}},{{jane}} or {{'her'}} - the single most important thing is whether or not it works, and the overwhelming evidence suggests in this instance that it does. If you think the template could do with a better name, feel free to propose one. Perhaps reversing the redirect at {{infobox place}}? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am, however, posting my response only here, as I don't know whether your IP is static or dynamic.

I would respectfully disagree that "settlements" and "administrative divisions" aren't all that different. They do share a set of generic metadata parameters (which can be thought of as derived from a single generic parent), but that doesn't make them the same. If you are familiar with OOP, you will understand the philosophical foundation of my opposition very easily.

On the name of {{Infobox Settlement}}, I do not wish to get involved into a discussion because the template is primarily used in the articles which are outside of my area of interest (so I feel it should be dealt with by those who are affected by its use directly). It does not, however, change the fact that I am perpetually puzzled by the fact that it is called "settlement". While I don't think "infobox place" is a good choice either (something like a province is not exactly a "place"), I tend to agree it would be still a better choice. There are mighty plenty of better alternatives, too ("populated area", perhaps? That, of course, immediately alerts as to the very generic nature of the template.). I also don't agree that as long as a template works, it can be called whatever name one thinks is appropriate. The clearer the name is, the better our chances that the template is used correctly and appropriately. It's one thing to have a name that unintuitive, but it's completely another to insist on using one that's simply misleading.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Викивстреча в США

Коллега! Есть мнение, что пора устроить первую встречу русскоязычных википедистов в США. Присоединяйтесь тут: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B8

Talkback

Hello, Ezhiki. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox Russian inhabited locality.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Looking forward to hearing from you, when you are back from the weekend at least. tedder (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh

You're really starting to annoy me with your actions. Fine vote to keep Solomon Islands templates based on your views that provinces are not settlements but your irrational behaviour over the Bangladesh template is clear. I spent time creating 64 maps because the current template is inaccurate and has the incapacity to accept better quality and more accurate locator maps. Basically you are voting to keep a template which continues to display big districts as a pin point, Get your facts straight and do some research before you systematically troll these TFDs because of your minor concern about district vs settlement. By this you are denying me the chance to correct the existing faults in all of these articles and add my higher quality maps to the templates like Bagerhat District which actually has proper district map and clean them up when I have already done so over the Upazilas. I spent hours cleaning them up and this is how you respond. I would never dream of interfering with your nominations as I would respect your judgement about them and believe you had a valid reason to do so. I've accepted your judgement over the Russian templates, why couldn't you have at least have shown me some respect that I nominated the Bangladesh template for a good reason. If you are that conerned about infobox settlement being in articles about provinces and districts I strongly suggest we adapt the Template:Infobox Region in the same format but which addresses this issue. Thanks a bunch Ezhiki. Now it looks as if I'll have to go through the articles manually wasting many unnecessary hours of my time just to correct the inaccuracies and sort them out as proper districts myself with a proper infobox and district locator and rid of the stupid old pin point district locators just because of people who blindly voted to "keep" it without realising that they provide false information. What would you think if I for instance moved all of the Russian city infoboxes into a "Region" naming, removed any paramters which indicated what the settlement type was and inisted that we keep using a template that displays raions as cities (just like Jamalpur District and this template you insist we keep) and vice versa. It would be completely redundant and irrational andyou would object immediately and be outraged that it is far from correct. Well it is exactly the same thing here that you are insisting on in all but your "settlement vs district argument". Just because the Bangladesh template using the name "district" does not automatically mean that the accuracy of the template isn't inherently flawed and illustrates districts as "settlements" themsevles. Ironically it is I who is trying to correct the template by removing the pin maps and replacing with a standard infobox to display accurate district locators to avoid real confusion over settlement type displayed in the actual infobox itself. Not by disrupting it by converting to Infobox "settlement". The actual content and accuracy of the template itself is the most important thing above all. besides which the blue banner states "District". Now, shall I follow your example with the Bangladesh district and modify Template:Infobox Russian federal subject2 so it shows the republics as pin point city dots rather than regional locators? It is exactly the same thing you have voted for here. Himalayan 11:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this comment of yours makes me very sad. I could expect an angry rant like this from many different people, but not from you (especially not under your new "Himalayan" identity). Oh well, disappointments abound today. At any rate, your comment is not much worse than a hasty "admin abuse" accusation on AN/I (which, I see, you already happily added to, even though it's on an unrelated topic).

All in all, if you wish to assume bad faith about my intentions (which, I hope, are not "to take over the whole Wikipedia and to turn it into a private fiefdom of mine, where I and only I shall call all the shots?"), I have a page specifically dedicated just for that. You are welcome to knock yourself out there; any comment you leave there will certainly be in good company, and I am yet to hold any comment made there against anyone. On the other hand, if you are genuinely interested in why I do what I do, vote a certain way and not the other, why I "troll" TfD with identical comments (maybe because someone else previously "trolled" TfD with identical nominations instead of recognizing a systemic approach and questioning that approach instead?), why I choose to comment on some TfDs but not the others, why I commented on the "settlement" TfDs, whether I do indeed assume bad faith of someone or it just somehow seems so, or even what kind of beer or cheese I like, you are more than welcome to ask me directly and without already having made up your mind about me. I am usually pretty open and forthcoming with my responses, and I usually give those responses the highest priority, even when they consist of accusations I find totally baseless or based on reasons I believe are totally misunderstood. Today, however, having just wasted an hour writing an epic response at AN/I (one which I very much doubt anyone is going to read in its entirety, yet alone trace it back), I have no inclination to respond to your "irrational behavior" insinuations above. If you want an answer, please kindly leave that kind of attitude at the coat check and ask again. Who knows, maybe the answer will surprise you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you abuse your tools. I am just tired of people, not just you hounding the TFDs with the same copied message everytime just to prove their point. Like the Australian editors who went off and nominated to stupidly keep Afghanistan templates which were uinused. It is the last thing I had expected from you too to do this sort of thing, especially on a template I had personally nominated for deletion for seemigly much more valid reasons than the others. I think you were very rash to comment on them as if everyone is the same. As it stands with Bangladesh namely you are voting to keep an inaccurate tmeplate and preventing me from sorting them out. PLus I did mention the other day to you that locking that template was going way too far and you ignored why I was concerned and dismissed them and justified it. Do you expect me to be praising of your actions over the Bangladesh template which are preventing me from adding these 64 maps. I spent hours creating them and I went out of my way to start trying to clean them up, I already cleaned uo the upazilas. Then you turn up and ignore the fundamental flaw of the old template and cite aminor reason why it is not appropriate to replace them. Would you be happy if I did that to you? Himalayan 15:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw your comments from the Bangladesh TFD and I'll let it rest. I don't think in all honesty you really read my comments at that TFD did you? I think you saw it as another of Andy's nominations. You have a right to be concerned about naming convention but I don't think copying and pasting the same message into every TFD to prove a point that his actions are unwanted without acknowledging that some of the templates might actually have more serious issues and might differ from the Russian template was the way to go about it. If you didn't want a backlash, try discussing it with the editors more rationally and I would recommend Andy does the same. I nominated a few templates a few weeks back and I've found it seriously isn't the way to go about it as it causes too much aggression. If you seriously objected to all of his nominations then start a RFC and perhaps we could come to a consensus about a seperate template for regions although my comments to Andy suggested he is unwilling to do this. Pasting all of the TFDs is not the way to go and only ignited the situation. If you respect me as much as I respect you I hope you will at least acknowledge and try to understand why I personally was upset with the way you pasted into the Bangladesh template which I had worked hard to try to correct. Regards. Himalayan 16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if people hounding TfDs with the same message copied over and over bother you, I shouldn't really be your first choice for venting. The diversity of nominations I commented on leaves much to be desired—they don't so much deal with problems specific to each particular template as they (try to) deal with a systemic problem. Since there is no single place to comment on that systemic problem, and the nominator is explicitly against doing so, is that so much a surprise that people have to copy their identical responses all over the place as well?

Regarding the Bangladesh template (which I fully realize was nominated by you and not the other person), I do believe the template could use improvement. I also do believe the maps you were working on are a huge step towards that improvement. However, I am against replacing that template with {{Infobox Settlement}} for reasons which have nothing to do with you or the improvements you've made. I am against the replacement for systemic, fundamental reasons (those being primarily the fact that a "settlement" is not a "district" and that WP:Bangladesh has not explicitly been made aware of the nomination). Since I perceived the BD districts nomination to possess the exact same systemic flaw as all the rest cut-and-paste nominations dealing with similar infoboxes, I opposed the deletion on precisely the same grounds I did for all other similar nominations.

The important thing to remember is that the whole point of any xfD is to gather opinions of people on the matter. The more varied those opinions are, the easier it is to ascertain all implications (although it is not necessarily easier to come to a conclusion regarding what to do with a particular "x" being "fD'd"). With the BD districts—if the template in its existing form does not allow to use better maps, it's a problem that can be fixed. It's not a problem that means the template should go. Maybe the template should go for other reasons, but, having read other opinions, I did not see one strong enough to change my opinion. You realize that even among the cut-and-paste nominations I did not vote to "keep" all of them? That's because I assessed each individual TfD on its merits. I assure you I carefully assessed the BD districts nomination as well, if that's what you are doubting. You don't have to agree with my assessments, but you have no right to deprive me of voicing it. In the end, it is just one opinion out of many, and if it touches only one aspect of the nomination, it should be considered only on the merits of that aspect. Once all opinions and aspects are combined, the closing admin will make a decision that, hopefully, represents a consensus. You, on the other hand, are trying to present my vote as if it's the one that will lead to an outcome that you deem unfavorable. I do not see that as fair.

Would I be happy if you voiced only one little aspect in a discussion that I started? Probably not. Still, I would have looked at the merits of your comment, responded to it accordingly, and hopefully avoided accusing you of "irrational behavior" in the process. Both of us have been with the project for quite some while now; at this point do you really believe I would act "irrationally" on anything? That I would hand-pick TfD nominations of a particular person and oppose them out of spite? I certainly would not make such an assumption about you, no matter how outlandish any particular edit/act of yours may seem on the surface. At the same time, I also reserve a right not to agree with you on any single issue, and acknowledge that you have the exact same right in return. Hopefully, if we pinpoint and discuss such issues, it would be more productive than accusing one another of irrationality.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

If you genuinely see why the Bangladesh template was nominated and you think that the naming of the template is far more important than the actual accuracy of the information within the template I am sorry. I just noticed that you failed to mention anything you just told me, neither did you rationally provide a possibility of addressing both problems. If you had said yes I can see that the maps are currently incorrect in this template, how do we go about correcting this whilst replacing it witht a template which doesn't give a misguided indicator of location type. But if you read actually what you wrote it didn't acknowledge any of this and you treated the template exactly the same as all of the others. You didn't think it was appropriate to suggest a different named template to be added in division articles to avoid this confusion or start a RFC... As for "picking" on you, you are better than some of the other morons on here and are far more intelligent and a decent person, this is why I was shocked it was you who had resorted to their tricks of gat crahsing every nomination to prove a point on each one. My point is that you are voting to keep an inaccurate template and consider this much less important than whether the template is called settlement or not. Maybe you have a point of the name " settlement" itself being used in district/province articles but I certinaly think accuracy is more important than naming convention. I recommend we find a way to address both problems but without the belligerent atmsophere reflected at such forums. Himalayan 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16. You did not so much as even mention the inaccurate maps on the BD one!! If you are adament that you are right about naming convention at least acknowledge there what you said here that the erros needing sorting! What is pissing me off is this matter should have been easily settled two weeks ago and corrected and you are contributing to prolonging a discussion about it which is wasting my time. Himalayan 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

When one is busy copy-pasting responses to nearly identical nominations which someone else helpfully copy-pasted across multiple TfD pages, do you find it surprising that one would first address the same aspect in a nomination submitted by someone else? And do you believe if you just asked something like "hey, Ezhiki, are you sure you wanted to copy-paste the exact same response to my nomination; it is, after all, not exactly the same and I think there are more important aspects you could have considered" (instead of "your irrational behavior puzzles me; your argument is invalid; retract it"), I would not be willing to explain my actions amicably? Explain once again that while your nomination has merits (on which as you correctly pointed out I have not commented on the TfD), it is also subject to the same problem that plagues the nominations which were copy-pasted?

Is the accuracy of a nominated template more important than a theoretical argument about another template's name and scope? Of course it is. Nevertheless, I chose the "less important" one; a choice which, as I see now, is confusing to you. So, here's my reasoning, explained once again as simply as I can: a) a problem with a template can be addressed by fixing a template, not by deleting it (yes, I will add this to my TfD comment per your request); b) the scope of the nominated template is more adequate than the scope of the template that was to replace it. If BD districts were nominated because a better BD districts-specific template were available, I would have said "delete" without much thought. As it is not the case, and as I oppose the use of a generic template for specific purposes, my say was to "keep". It is still. Note that I don't ask you to agree with this reasoning, but I sure hope that you at least see that it is not "irrational".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think both issues could be solved relatively easily and that too much time has been wasted not actually working out how we can reasonably solve both issues and too much time has been spent accusing each other of irrational and angry behaviour. I left a note at ANI saying there is not much point continuing the conflict until we simply solve what needs to be done and I have also suppported you in keeping the current naming convention of the Russian template. Work with me and lets assume good faith and find a way to address these problems. Now I have an article ti finishe about a Georgian national park. I'll address the issue about naming convention to Plastikspork as politically it may not be correct but I don't think it is as big a deal as you are making out to be, accuracy is far more important but if we can solve both concerns, great. Himalayan 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, tell me about wasting time... I had massive amounts of free time last week, which I planned to put to good use by developing the time zones portion for the inhabited localities template. Instead, I got dragged into an AN/I quagmire about a user being blocked. And now this... If this continues, this weak is going to be wasted as well, and I'm gone on vacation the next two! So much for getting things done...

Anyway, thanks for your support on AN/I (I do hope it's not a "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" deal, because if it is, you can retract your support right away and no, I am not assuming bad faith, I just want this to be crystal clear about what's going on in case someone else asks). I have posted a clarification of my vote on the BD districts nomination. While I still oppose the deletion, I have acknowledged that the template has serious issues that need to be addressed one way or the other. Like I said before, mine is just one opinion out of many. Now if you excuse me, I have a three-day watchlist backlog I need to go through. Best of luck,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

That is something at least you have now acknolwedged that isn't perfect. Thankyou. I've addressed the issue with Plastikspork, I don't think it would be that problematic to replicate the template under a say Template:Infobox Division to be used in most articles on provinces and districts. That in my view would simply solve the issue and allow us to proceed without being politicially incorrect. Anyway..

Divisions

What now is wrong with this? Does this address both problems?

Himalayan 17:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If separate templates are adopted for "settlements" and "administrative divisions", that would certainly alleviate my concerns (which, I realize, may or may not be shared by the community in general) at least partially. My other two concerns (which kind of got buried in the discussions above) were, first, that each regional template should be brought to attention of an appropriate WikiProject (you can't expect a balanced outcome if only one of the two sides participates), and second, that a generic template (be it for settlements or regions) may be too generic or insufficient for needs of a particular country. Remember Russia and its weird administrative/municipal distinctions which sometimes overlap but often don't? That's WP:RUSSIA's problem; one which generic templates are not very good at addressing (they tend to encourage dumbing down the infobox contents instead of addressing the core issue). Once again, I believe this is something that affected WikiProjects should have a say on. If an affected WikiProject does not oppose usage of a generic infobox (or opposes it merely for emotional and attachment, rather than content, issues), I have no problems with using it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:01, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Russia and Israel have by far the most complex territorial divisions. Most countries are simply divided into regins, provinces. districts and municipalities and then towns and villages within them/city municipalities. A simple way to address it would be to redirect the division template name into infobox settlement and in articles about districts/provinces display the division name rather than "settlement" name. I think though that for municipality articles which mostly include a main towns and other smaller settlements that infobox settlement is OK, for sub districts. districts and higher though I see your point even though I don't think it is that important. The most important thing is that we get the articles consistent and accurate but if all of the articles about provinces and district uses the name division i am happy with that. I don;t though think that Andy wants to talk about it, When I try to talk to him he either ignores me or replies with a comment which makes me wonder whether we actually share the same goals after all.. and he makes changes like this within 4 minutes of creating.... Himalayan 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even better is this Himalayan 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the administrative/municipal difference is that important. It's not that interesting to most people (even in Russia itself), but it is important nevertheless, and is definitely something an encyclopedia like ours should be sure to take notice of. One of these days, I will eventually write an article about the municipal reform in Russia (at least the second one, which was conducted in 2004–2005); perhaps then it would be easier to explain just how important it is.

I am a big fan of standardization myself, and I spent countless hours trying to think of a way to fit the attributes of the Russian inhabited localities into a generic box. And what I found out is that while it can be done, it can be done only at the expense of quality and coverage. You can't ignore the municipal aspect altogether, because too many things are tied to it. For example, do you know that Russian cities/towns/etc. do not have flags/coats of arms? The municipal formations to which those cities/towns/etc. belong do (and historically this was not the case as the municipal aspect in Russia is still fairly new). Same goes for mayors, representative bodies, etc. And once you start thinking about how to incorporate the administrative/municipal divide into a generic infobox, you inevitably come to the conclusion that while it, too, can be done, it would be done at the expense of bloating the template with a parameters which only matter to one country. To me, it is a no-brainer that a separate template is warranted here. As for other countries, I can't tell, but I would imagine it is all too easy to focus on a common set of parameters (for a generic infobox) and overlook something equally important that only matters to a particular country, and that it is a nightmare to try to organize everything so it works equally well for everything. It is even easier to overlook if the WikiProjects are going to be ignored and removed from the standardization process.

Andy-wise, can't help you there for obvious reasons. I am hardly the person to lecture him now, although I do think that lectured (about the virtues of a discussion) he should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Just trust me that I actually mostly think the same way as you do in regards to sorting things out on here and whatever work I do wth templates/geo articles is more than likely to standardise and keep consistent like yourself. oh I agree settlement type is important and should rightly be correct but it is teplate accuracy above all. My ideal is for it all to be correct like in the example I showed you above. If we can keep it consistent and accurate like this this is much better. Himalayan 18:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Template:Infobox parish so basically this could be used in those articles about Portuguese parishes so it standardised but has the correct settlement type. Himalayan 19:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Weep weep, why do you you keeep changing the templates and formats LOL. I added loads of infoboxes the other day to work towards adding referenced data. Do an example on that article and I'll copy it from now on when adding.. Himalayan 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novosibirsk is one. There were a few others, but I haven't get a chance to deploy the new format on a large scale just yet.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:33, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Holy Smokes Batman, that example is as sound as a pound! I have never seen a stronger looking template! Great work! Now if we could get every template referenced like that and some good articles to boot!!! I'll retrace my steps I made the other day and add the new documentation I started going through the cities and towns categories in alpha order. When you add the timezone that will be the icing on the cake.! Actually you may want to get Plastikspork or Rich Farmborough to help add the new documentation to exisiting articles. It is a task for a bot/assisted rather than manual, will save precious time... Himalayan 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having all templates referenced like this one is precisely the task on my to-do list I was telling you about the other day. Glad it meets your approval. It may sound cheesy, but your positive comment means a lot to me (unlike another comment, some ways above this one, which I'm willing to forget :)).

One thing I wanted to point out that copying Novosibirsk template might not be a very good idea. It only includes the parameters which apply to Novosibirsk, and they will not necessarily apply to other places. A copy-paste model in the documentation is a much safer bet. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Cheesy? If so I'll be making it brie to eat with some red wine please sir. Above all I do actually share your views about referencing and consistency but sometimes the task need to pull it off seems too much or it may seem over the top so to speak. I am all for a high numbe rof references in articles as I believe this is what makes us more reliable as a reproducer of information in that each fact can be checked. Agian my concern in this case was that many editors are not Russian so probably couldn't understand it or find sources to help out. Again that is not an excuse to go all lazy with referencing, it shouldn't matter what language the source is providing it is accurate on english wikipedia. I hpoe we can find a way of speedying up the process, maybe Plastikspork will be able to devise something in the future... Himalayan 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread regarding your involved protection templates

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown_at_Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

A year ago...

You wrote: "I have a 1987 list of the inhabited localities of South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. If it's going to be of any use to you, I'll gladly share it (it's only about a dozen sparsely populated pages, so I guess I can re-type them fairly quickly). Note, however, that the list includes only the names in Russian. Just let me know if this is something you can use (I would, of course, prefer not to have to type it if more current sources are easily available elsewhere)". Do you still have it? If so, can you post it on my talkpage? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia got it saved on one of his subpages. The very first revision of that page is what I gave him a year ago. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:44, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Avtozavodsky

Just wanted to point out that Avtozavodsky City District, Nizhny Novgorod is not the same as the "districts of Russia" you mentioned in your (well-deserved) praise. This is an administrative district of a large city; a concept completely different and unrelated to the administrative districts of a federal subject. Just thought you'd want to know :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:41, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I know, it is a city district. I am not stupid LOL! I work on articles all over the world and I know the difference bwtween a city neighbourhood or ward and a rural district of a province LOL. Himalayan 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken

Axxn (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I don't really know what I did to deserve it, but I'll put it to good use come the lunch hour :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

lol.. enjoy ur lunch then. Axxn (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands

As you felt strongly about keeping that template I've added some infoboxes to here to give you an idea of how simply a box can replace it. The fact remains that the previous templates were redundant. As you can now have the option to use infobox settlement through the province naming this should be absolutely fine now. Himalayan 12:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never questioned that {{Infobox settlement}} (IS) can, technically, replace a regional template. With some ingenuity, one can adopt IS to use in articles about national parks, provinces of the Roman Empire, the economic regions of Russia, or whatever else comes your way. In the end, however, just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Calling IS via a redirect does not solve the core problem—you are trying to fit many different concepts under the scope of one template. When a template becomes too generic, it stops being useful; the trick is to determine the boundaries, and I don't believe IS boundaries should include anything beyond a "settlement" (and even that may be too generic).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:46, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

That's where we disagree. Lagos State, Nimba County, Guadalcanal Province infoboxes look absolutely fine for regional infoboxes and caters for all the desired parameters in the same way it looks absolutely fine with settlements like Jelgava etc.The same parameters are mostly used whether they are towns, municipalities, districts, provinces or regions yet those examples above are clearly not generic as they differ in appearance and content.This is designed exactly to cater for any location type and size as it can be self-modified. Given that as you stated you approve of consistency and standardising things from a maintenance point of view it is far better to use the same basis than having all sorts of haphazard templates for every nation in Africa and Asia. There is absolutely no reason why their use is justified. I'll support you on the RUssian template givne the apparent uniqueness of settlement types but to apply it to the rest of the world that somehow each places should have a seperate infobox when you can modify a single template to meet requirements is redundant. Himalayan 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's exactly where we disagree. While I am all for consistency and standardization, I am also for using clearly defined classes. Like I said, it is not impossible to use IS for many various things, but doing so is fundamentally wrong (and will bite you in the ass in the long-term; trust me on that one). On the other hand, if any particular WikiProject adopts IS for their needs (be it for "settlements" or "fiefdoms of yore"), it is going to be their problem, not mine. I can't be in twenty five million places at once, so from now on I'm going to limit my objections to the area that affects the efforts of the project I'm most involved with (WP:RUSSIA).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:14, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

The thing is if you now click to edit Lagos State for example it is classed as a state and so is the infobox and has nothing to do with infobox settlement in the article. That is where I think your argument is a weak one, not mine. Himalayan 14:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that particular infobox is an instance of IS; and IS remains a textbook example of how a class should not be defined. You can mask a poorly designed class by manually assigning it attributes to make it look as if it's well-designed (and that's precisely what you did in the Lagos State article), but the core approach still remains flawed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

The only place I can see your point is in the information about GDP where you have to use blank title and fill that in rather than it specifically stating "GDP "2007". If there are a lot of speciallly needed paramters like 5 or so that is where I can see the benefits of having a specially designed template. You can call my work flawed as much as you like but the information presented is still accurate and it looks tidy and well organized to normal readers.To me it is much better to have the template like Lagos than like this which is currently used in most Nigerian state articles. I see my work as cleaning up evne if you don't. Himalayan 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing specifics here. Remember, I have already said that it is possible to use IS for a lot of non-settlement stuff? It can work; it's just not right if we are to go about things properly. Nor am I calling your work "flawed". I am, however, calling the premise on which IS is designed "flawed". By extension, putting a flawed concept to use means that every application is going to be flawed at its root. At the same time, the information bits you supply can still be as good as they can ever get. The bottom line: the fact that a hereditary class ("settlement", "province", "district") shares a set of attributes with its generic parent ("populated area", in our case misleadingly called IS) does not eliminate the need to have a hereditary class in place. It may seem meaningless, but in the long term in always pays out, be it because needs to add hereditary class-specific attributes arise, or for the reasons of facilitating maintenance. If you are not seeing it now, I'm not going to badger you about it as long as it does not adversely affect the quality of my own work. You will see it eventually, I promise :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

I do see some of your points, and I think in some cases it is actually each to have a specially designed template but in some cases to me their continued existence seems illogical. For instance see Forchach, Austria which I converted to add a much needed municipality map. Now say I wanted to add municipality map to another in that district, let's say, http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Elmen&action=edit . Now look at that template, what the heck does it mean and how do you know which is which without spending time to work out what the German is and the possibility of how you actually include the map. Now say a newbie wanted to help add maps, they would take one look at the box and think , urgh how the heck am I supposed to add a map? There is absolutely no reason why any settlement in Austria shouldn't have a template and municipal map like Forchach. The ones at present do not even have locators for municipalities which is a basic essential! Yet thosewho voted to keep it failed to see how much tougher they are making it for the people working on them. Now I am sure the template itself could be adapted to include maps but they shouldn't be in German. Above all it is the templates which are fundamentally flawed I feel most strongly about when they are preventing progress, like with the Bangladesh and Austrian templates when you can't simply edit them. Yes you could add a map option to them but to me it just seems easy to standardise them as I know where I am. Himalayan 17:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone who voted, but my reasoning would be that it is always possible to preserve a region-specific box by improving it and fixing its problems. Yes, it might be easier to replace it altogether with IS because there are too many problems or design flaws, but, returning to my original argument—just because something is easier to do does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. By using IS you are addressing short-term problems, but leave the long-terms ones on simmer to explode in your face at a later date. Me, if faced between a necessity to completely re-write a well-defined but poorly designed template and choosing to adopt a generic template instead, I'd choose a re-write any day. It pays in the long term, and "long term" is precisely how long we should be planning to stay around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Timezones

Looks good, probably quite tricky given that Russian time zones seme to span 10 hours or near enough! Omsk looks good. I wondered if we could do a colour trial provide some possible colour possibilities. The current one, it just doesn't quite seem right does it? Himalayan 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? I thought you were going to try out different color schemes anyway?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

I am open to a darker colour and white text. It is entirely up to you. The problem was that I tried some dark colours and it looked bad because of the black writing. Could you tell me which colours you don't like, I know purple is one any others? Himalayan 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Na, I restored it to the old green colour, it looks more homely and familiar. Agreed? I've changed the settlement type banner to a nice looking robin egg very light blue rather than grey. It looks good now i think. Himalayan 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. If you ever come up with a better idea, I'm sure you'll let me know :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Redundant cat?

Should this be deleted: [25]? (note the typo in the name) I think the correct cat is [26], but it maybe needs a subcategory "Energy generation companies in Russia"? Offliner (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Are you also a railfan?

I remember that you know all about MK61 calculator. GK tramrunner (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't say I'm a fan. I am a great sympathizer though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:59, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

"Unnecessary article"?

What on earth are you doing removing an article ("the") that I added to the Yakimanka page? I am a native speaker of English and you are not; that does not make me a better person than you, but I don't understand how you can feel confident enough about articles (a notorious problem for Russian speakers) to make a change like that. I copyedit for a living, and I assure you that I know when articles are called for and when they're not. I know Russian quite well and have made fixes to Russian Wikipedia articles, but I would never dream of trying to correct the grammar of a native speaker. A little humility is a good thing. --Languagehat (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little humility is indeed a good thing... and as you correctly noticed, I am not a native speaker. Which is precisely why a couple years ago I was wise enough to seek advice not of one, but several native speakers (some with linguistics degrees). Their advice varied, but in general they all agreed that both usages (with and without an article) are acceptable, and the usage without the article is slightly more acceptable. As per that recommendation, we do not use definite articles to refer to Russian districts in the English Wikipedia. Feel better now? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:18, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation, and I'm sorry I was so cranky.--Languagehat (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, here are two distinguished gentlemen well-versed in definite articles :)) would one of you (happy holidays to the other one) dare to fix the articles in the new Saint Basil's Cathedral? NVO (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'll pass... It's almost time to go pack stuff anyway :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday

And thanks for teaching me. :) I'm glad my comment wasn't taken incorrectly. I thought it was just a rather funny typo. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Losev

Hi, in case you don't have that page in your watchlist yet, you might want to check those developments. A user is keen on adding out-of-context stuff, in order to paint Losev as an evil antisemitic writer with misogynistic (!) traits (perhaps homophobia shall be the next accusation). I did experience similar dispute with the very user at Igor Shafarevich (now resolved), but it seems this time the guy has crossed the border from giving undue weight to blatant POV pushing. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my involvement is no longer necessary? Sorry to have missed this inquiry, but I was out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back numbnuts, hope you had a relaxing and enjoyable holiday. Did you get any of the tropical cyclones that I prayed heavily for? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's refreshing to see that you are not indefbanned yet. As for my vacation, it was pretty good but somewhat exhausting; having to juggle the family and all. Cyclones, yeah, I think I remember one day when there actually were a couple clouds in the sky... Here's the power of prayer for you :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

But I was indef blocked, remember? It was somewhat of a struggle to get even that lifted -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#Request_for_official_unblock. Anyway, the Arbcom is now at proposed FoF and proposed remedies stage. Can't say there is much there to help involved editors to look forward in a fair and equitable fashion, one can only try. Some actual acknowledgement of the harrassment might be nice though. Other than that, I'm working on some other bits and pieces at the moment, fun, fun, fun :) Anyway, good to see you back safe and sound. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russian Federation

Hey, thanks for the mods per WP:RUS. I update the page once in a while from its Russian equivalent using a script; I hope to incorporate your mods into the script so next time I update it I don't undo some of your changes. It also seems that some of the modifications per WP:RUS turned some wikilinks from blue to redlinks; I guess those need to be fixed. I don't have them handy as I am writing this, but if I recall correctly some E-to-Ye changes were not wikilinked properly last time I tested, so I did not do the change at the time. Perhaps some redirects will be in order once they get (re)discovered. --Mokhov (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those definitely need to be found and fixed. On the bright side, some of the red links turned into blue, so overall the state of the matters remained pretty much unchanged :) Thanks much for putting your time to develop this list, by the way—it will be most useful for cleanup and maintenance! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. PS: I am watching your talk page, so replying here is fine :) --Mokhov (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've just updated my script to take into consideration some transliterations documented at WP:RUS and updated the page with new entries from ruwiki. I noticed some of the mods you did are not documented in WP:RUS, so my script didn't do those. In particular, ks-to-x as in Aleksandrov or Alekseyev to Alexandrov or Alexeyev respectively -- any comment on that or should WP:RUS be updated to reflect that anyhow? Any exceptions, like Cheboksary? --Mokhov (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: move of the page to List of surnames in Russia -- at first I considered this title, but Russian Federation then seemed more appropriate as more encompassing than Russia, but I am fine with it either way --Mokhov (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: internal wiki formatting -- I see you like trimming spaces within headers, e.g. == A == to ==A==, as well as lists, e.g. * X to *X. While a very minor thing, my script does the former, and in general it seems a more preferred practice with spacing as more readable (and I personally like it). In fact, the Wikifier tool in ruwiki, which is embedded by default into the edit form, also automatically formats the headers and lists the way I did. So I reformatted them all back, I hope you don't mind too much of this change. :) --Mokhov (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your work!

Regarding the "ks-x", we normally tend to use "x" in names derived from "Alexander" and "Alexey" and use "ks" on all other occasions (like "Cheboksary"). This is mainly due to the "x" usage being more common in English, but you are right, WP:RUS does not explicitly recommend it (it used to in the past, however). I understand it's hard to program a script around that, but it's not really that big of a deal once redirects are set up properly.

I updated the script to treat those as "exceptions" in my recent update. --Mokhov (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of "Russia" or "Russian Federation" doesn't really matter to me either; both are correct (and equal as per the Constitution of Russia). It's just that the page needed to be moved anyway (to "list of surnames in Russia" or to "list of surnames in the Russian Federation"); I simply chose a shorter title.
Formatting, think nothing of it. Unlike you, I personally really hate extra spaces added for fluff (they tend to eat up valuable real estate on screens of mobile devices), so I trim them out every chance I get, but even with that attitude I know better than to keep trimming extra spaces out of a page that's updated via a script! :) Either type of formatting is acceptable per our guidelines.

The presence of spacing in the titles and lists do not make much difference in the wiki source as they are not transmitted over as the wiki parser processes them and renders them the same before sending the HTML output to the browsers -- thus whether you trim those or not you get the same amount of bytes sent to you after PHP formats the output. Unless of course you edit Wikipedia on your cellphone or Blackberry then I can see the point. ;-) --Mokhov (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I did actually mean editing. It's a torture as is, without extra fluff added on top! Anyway, not a big deal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for all your work! I started to create redirects from Russian spellings for those last names which already have a dab/surname page, and I'm sure this page will make a huge difference for future maintenance tasks. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:38, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Glad to help. --Mokhov (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done

marked as to delete per request, thanks for the help.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality_west http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Infobox_Russian_city_west

mike Mdupont (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike! I see someone has already deleted these two. I have, however, missed the third similar template—{{Infobox Russian inhabited locality West}} (note a different capitalization of "West"). Would you, please, be so kind as to tag that one as well? Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 11:09, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Nadym-Pur-Taz region

Gazprom's main production fields are located in the Nadym-Pur-Taz region. Since we don't have an article on that region, I need a good way of telling readers where exactly this region is. Here's the location: [27]. Do you have any ideas for the wording? Around the Ob bay would be one possibility, and also In the Nadymsky, Tazovsky and Purovsky districts is also possible (I checked that the major fields are indeed within those districts), although the reader probably won't know where those districts are. Offliner (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "around the Ob bay" or "in the Ob river basin" are the best choices. Describing this region via the districts is fine, too, but, as you correctly noted, we will need to have the articles about those districts in order for such description to be useful. Another possibility (if you need to be more specific than "Ob") is to define the region as an area "in the basin of the Nadym, Pur, and Taz Rivers"—we already have articles on each of these rivers.

Another thing I wanted to clarify is whether we should even have an article about the "Nadym-Pur-Taz region". From what I've seen, it's a convenience term used by Gazprom and as such is unlikely to be a notable subject deserving its own article (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point, though). In my opinion, inline clarification (whichever one you eventually select) is quite sufficient, unless there is enough content (even if it's all Gazprom specific) to warrant an article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Request for advise

I am having a conflict on Cantonist. At least another two editors take my side. There is a side isuue there, I would like to ask your advise on. Whether I am using the {{Verify credibility}} tag correctly? I'd appreciate it if you could answer me on my talkpage. Apart from that, feel free to express any further opinions you might have about the conflict. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on the Cantonist talk page rather, for openness'sake. Спасибо!Galassi (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you not stalk my edits, please! I asked a friend for personal advise. Please don't mix in. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do thing out in the open in Wikipedia, FYI.Galassi (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone from wp:wqa to wp:ani. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's now on AN/I and is being commented, I assume my help is no longer needed? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my question about the tag is not on WP:ANI, so if you'd care to comment on that... Debresser (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, what a mess (I've just looked at the Cantonist edit history closer). I, unfortunately, don't exactly have time to study all of the details of the conflict. If you could summarize for me how you applied the {{Verify credibility}} tag and what the culprit of the conflict is, I'd be able to tell what was done wrong (if anything, of course). Painting in broad brushstrokes, the template can be added to a sourced statement for which the person adding the tag believes the provided source is problematic. The source should then be verified by a previously uninvolved person and if there is indeed a problem then the statement can be removed or marked as unsourced. If there is no problem, then the tag can simply be removed. In either case, a short note on the talk page is due. From what I gather, this is not what really happened though, right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Actually the question is whether that templated is used in case there is doubt about the actual existence of the source, or when there is doubt about the reliability of the source as in wp:rs, or when there is coubt whether the source has come to the right conclusions (content doubts). Debresser (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that falls under "problematic" in my book. For any of these reasons, I would consider using this template as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the person adding a source to make sure it is applied correctly as well as to address any source-related concerns other editors might have.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:02, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. That was more or less my opinion also. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being extremely friendly and helpful in all interactions with me and others. Offliner (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mys Shmidta

Hi Ezhiki. i was wondering if you could tell me how you undid the redirect of this article. I left the guy a message about it when I saw it, but couldnt work out how to do it myself. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply moved it back. If you look at the row of the tabs at the top of every article, you should see one titled "move". When you click on it, you can specify the title to move the article to as well as a field to explain your reasoning. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:50, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Slovo o Polku

A small favor- an anti-Uke minded editor insists on a trifle edit against the phonetic evidence of guttural G, normally translitarated as H in English, in the Old East Slavic. He refuses to believe it.Galassi (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't refuse to believe it, but I honestly don't know much about transliteration of the Old East Slavic. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:02, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Avars

Hello! I'm working in Turkish Wikipedia and on these days about Avars. I've found a writing about them but it's Ukrainian. I don't know it. I know Turkish and English. And I couldn't find a translator in Turkish Wiki. Could you translate the writing into English? It's that;

За переказами, в давнину правив тут князь, у якого була вродлива дочка Ірва. На край дулібів напали кочівники-авари і облягли городище. Аварський ватажок відправив послів з вимогою віддати Ірву за нього заміж.
- У слов‘ян жінки самі вибирають собі наречених, - відповів князь і покликав доньку.
Аварські свати піднесли Ірві шовкову хустку. Та дівчина розірвала її навпіл і сказала:
- Коли ця хустка стане цілою, тоді я буду дружиною чужинця.
Розлючений вождь зайд наказав здобути місто, а Ірву силоміць привести до нього. Хоробро бились дуліби, та сили були нерівними – і всі захистники загинули. Тоді Ірва вихопила меч з рук убитого бтька і продовжувала бій. Оточена ворогами з усіх боків, вона наважилася кинутися з високої скелі на гостре каміння. Померла, та не далася чужинцям. З її очей потекли сльози, утворивши річку Ірву.

Thanks, best regards.--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend posting a request on WT:UKRAINE. While I do get a good gist of what the above says, I am not a native speaker of Ukrainian and only have very limited training in the language. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. The users in Ukrainian Wiki have translated it. Thanks again. Best regards.--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing selos

Hello Mr. Ezhiki. How is the infobox adding going? I was wondering what you would say to adding rural settlements into the navigation footer (not infobox!!!!) templates too. I think it is important to connect all articles within a given area. Maybe we could adapt the cities and towns templates by oblast to include other settlement types? Himalayan 13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we covered this already? {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} is good for any kinds of inhabited localities, including rural localities (I assume you meant those by "rural settlements"? I'm asking this because "rural settlements" proper are municipal formations, not localities. Semantics, semantics :)). So, if you want to add an infobox to an article about a selo, go right ahead! There's even a copy-paste model available now just for that case.

As for the infobox adding, it's not going anywhere. I've been on vacation for almost two weeks since after we last talked, and all this past week I am only slowly catching up, both in real life and on-wiki. Fret not, I have not forgotten, and this task is still high on my to-do list! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:16, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Nono... I mean a navigation footer template!!!! The reason why is see articles like Keperve'em. I would rather than footer nav template for the okrug also connnect them.. Himalayan 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Template:Chukotka Autonomous Okrug... Himalayan 13:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. But I'd say it's not a very good idea. It will work for something like Chukotka or Kamchatka, where the number of selos in a district is rarely more than a dozen or two, but it will absolutely not work for most other federal subjects. Consider, for example, Novosibirsk Oblast, which has, on average, fifty rural localities per district—and that's not even an extreme case (in fact, Novosibirsk's values are around the median). On the extreme (but not atypical) end of the range, Tver Oblast's districts have, on average, over 250 rural localities. A footer in such cases would be way overloaded and quite useless as a navigational aide. Much simpler just to list all those places in the article about the district.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Mm OK then. But I'd say district templates in the future might be reasonable to link all settlements within them together if not a federal one... I just don't want rural settlements ignored and neglected that's all.. Himalayan 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want them neglected either; it's just that we don't even have more high-profile stuff to organize them around. Ideally, we would have articles on all the administrative districts and then possibly about the selsoviets and/or municipal rural settlements (depending on the structure of each federal subject; they are all different). The latter two would be an ideal place to group the rural localities under, but it makes no sense to go about creating selsoviet articles (on which very, very, very scant information is available) when most of the district ones are still red. I hope, however, this will gain pace once my database is finally finished :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:50, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Chukotka

Any reason why we aren't using Template:Location map Russia Chukotka Autonomous Okrug? Wasn't it faulty? Himalayan 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the faulty one was for Sakhalin Oblast. This one I must have overlooked. Will add pronto. Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought I remembered trying it for Uelen and it wrongly showing in the center? Hope it works... Himalayan 20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I kind of vaguely remember now, but am not entirely sure. Anyway, let me try it out; if it fails, at least we'll hopefully remember it this time :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:31, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, still wrong I just checked. I'll speak to NNW on German wiki see if he can sort it out Himalayan 20:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, turns out Chukotka is already coded in. The reason why the map didn't show up was this. Another problem was this. The remaining problem is that the eastern bound is still coded as 191°. It works for places in the eastern hemisphere (like Anadyr), but I don't know what needs to be done to make it work for Uelen as well. Please let me know what you find out on de-wiki, and thanks again for bringing this problem to light!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:44, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I think I figured it out myself. The problem was indeed the 191. It should be a - (west) and also it should be 168 rather than 191. I'll do a quick test and let you know shortly if it works. Looks promising.. Himalayan 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this does not fix the Uelen situation and breaks Anadyr as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:47, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. It is closer but show it off the coast. That's odd because it uses the exact same coordinates as on German wiki and it works on there. I'll have to wait to see what NNW can do.. Himalayan 20:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ru_wiki uses 191, and it somehow works. I gotta go soon, but perhaps you wouldn't mind poking around there while we wait on NNW anyway?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:52, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to help sort out a map, I don't appreciate you referring to it as "poking" when I'm working to try to figure it out. Himalayan 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me you took my comment seriously and at face value? It was meant to be lighthearted and sort of playful. If that's not how it sounded, I apologize. Are you having a bad day today or something? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Well you can sometimes not tell in text over the Internet sometimes. Don't worry, I won't cock it up further, I'll wait until NNW does something now.. Himalayan 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I did think about that but as the German wikipedia one didn't I assumed the location map main template was programmed in the same way... Caption looks much better too... Himalayan 09:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortochka

Well, [this modern (professional) source makes me think that there is really no the corresponding word in English, so I think the article may live. - Altenmann >t 21:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good one. It doesn't change the fact that no English dictionary lists this word, though. Perhaps we should move it to ventilation window then?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Checked the term already. Nope: many types. - Altenmann >t 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rastrelli page is of unknown authorship. Interesting, but requires further verification. - Altenmann >t 21:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one is better... But still frivolous. Have to go. You proceed by yourself. Bye. - Altenmann >t 21:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles from English names

Dont be moving articles on things pertaining to Russia to the Russian names, we have traditional English names for some of those things that you are moving. Also i thought y need to start a discussion before moving articles like you are doing, Request a move first seems like the best option.

WP:RUS says this: 1.If the person is an author of works published in English, the spelling of the name used in such publications should be used. When multiple spellings are used and no single spelling clearly predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines. 2.If the person's preference of spelling of his/her name in English is known and can be documented, that spelling should be used. 3.If the person is the subject of English-language publications, the spelling predominantly used in such publications should be used. A preference is given to publications in the area in which the person specializes. When no single spelling predominates, use the one closest to the WP:RUS romanization guidelines. Example: the article on figure skater Александр Геннадиевич Зайцев is located at Alexander Gennadiyevich Zaitsev (not "Zaytsev"), because "Zaitsev" is the English spelling used by the International Skating Union, Figure Skating Federation of Russia, and in other publications about the person (ref).

and most importantly... A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over romanization at all times.

Its trying to get at do not move articles on things with established names in English, or English names, to a romanized Russian name in other words.

Also, all the islands in Franz Josef Land original names were in either English, German, or Scandinavian, and its also true that those original names are still used in English.

-- Hroþberht (gespraec) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, R9! You know, it's great that you cite WP:RUS like that—it shows that you've read at least part of it. Unfortunately, you are not citing all relevant parts, nor, with all due respect, you seem to understand what the intent of this guideline is. I am not being sarcastic saying this, by the way; it's just that most people using the "English usage" card don't quite get what the guideline is about either.

Take "People", for example. You've cited items 1 through 3, but missed the (rather important) portion at the top of that section where it says that when spelling is selected based on one of these criteria, it must be documented on the article's talk page (emphasis mine). You have not done so with any of your moves, and, to quote WP:RUS again, in absence of verifiable documentation, romanization produced by the WP:RUS guideline must be used (meaning "use the romanization table at the bottom of the guideline). Now, if you took time to provide the said documents (or, better yet, add cites to the article so both the content and the choice of spelling are referenced), do you think I'd have any reason to object? I do a brief research on each and every single article I think should be moved per WP:RUS, and when there is indeed an apparent variant predominantly used in English, I use that. All in all, I stand by my move decisions. In my judgement, a WP:RM was unnecessary because the moves were done in full compliance with WP:RUS, it's as simple as that. One does not file for a WP:RM every time a guideline is misapplied; one simply fixes the problem.

Now, "Places". Let me quote the same passage back to you, but emphasizing a different portion of it: a conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over romanization at all times. Granted, we don't supply a list of said "major dictionaries" on talk pages of articles like Moscow or Saint Petersburg, but then anybody with half a brain can easily verify those two. Not the case for tiny places like Keperveyem—that one is not listed in any dictionaries (which means it simply does not have a "conventional English name"—a case with 99% of Russian places, by the way), and the "industry standard" for romanization of such Russian toponyms is BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian (endorsed by both the US and UK, and I believe by the English-speaking countries of the Commonwealth as well) around which, I should add, WP:RUS is built.

On the other hand, you may have a point with the islands in Franz Josef Land. A good number of them do indeed have English names. However, in my experience, those names are being phased out in favor of BGN/PCGN variants. In other words, they are becoming obsolete (which is no wonder as the islands have been in Russian jurisdiction for quite some while). Case in point: two out of the three atlases I checked show Yeva-Liv Island as "Ostrov Yeva-Liv" (the third atlas did not have that island marked). All three atlases use BGN/PCGN. "Eva Island" is more common in historical and older literature. All this makes me think that straight romanization is a better choice here because that's where the usage is shifting to. In addition, giving a small number of sources dealing specifically with this island, I would say that either "Yeva-Liv" or "Eva" enjoy very few mentions at all, so it's safer to err on the side of standardization and use "Yeva-Liv".

Anyway, the bottom line is that one cannot pick a spelling from a random text that happens to use English words and claim that spelling to be the correct English usage (although, of course, it may happen to be it). There is always a big picture that needs to be considered, and that big picture is precisely what WP:RUS is all about. Please let me know if anything in my explanation above is unclear to you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Mind? Thank you!

Mind? Thank you for your contribution on my talk page! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually on your user page, but if you find it useful, you are quite welcome :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:35, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Some funny evidence

Hey Ezhiki, I know you wanna stay away from the EEML arbcom, but I couldn't resist showing you this piece of evidence. What's funny about that? Well the part that I apparently communicate with Offliner over the telephone. His evidence? Well this of course. Remember that? It's funny, because Offliner wasn't even mentioned or involved, and you probably remember this hilarity? So perhaps Biophys is actually accusing you and I of "talking on the phone" (you know the obvious wikilink for that). How on earth does one even respond to such things? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lucky for me, that's one kind of phone I never got a chance to communicate on :) How to explain it, I don't know. I find it quite sad that Biophys would try to use the phone gag as "evidence". I distinctly remember him being explained what kind of "phone" was meant (I might even dig up a diff if such need arises). Either he has a very short memory, or it's something else... And if it's "something else", it's not funny at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't understand why a jovial discussion between you and I; a discussion in which we both knew what we were talking about, is now being used as evidence of editors talking on the phone. I link to the discussion above, but here it is not piped - User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Trollfest - which reminds me, seeing as I am now being accused of talking to other editors on the phone, I guess I better give you my phone number - it is 1-800-372-2739 (spell it out on your phone, you'll appreciate it). Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hope all is going good with you too. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North-Ossetia Alania Rating

I noticed that you have assessed this article as C-Class in November, 2008. However, I feel that there has been enough improvement in a year's time, to move it to B-Class. What do you think? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, if you see an article that is not assessed correctly or which you believe improved a lot since last time it had been assessed, please just go ahead and re-assess it; there's no need to ask me or anyone else for that matter. Assessments only serve as rough guidelines for us to see where the important stuff is. Anyway, since you've asked, on this particular article, I would agree that it probably qualifies as B-class now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:22, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Part of was just to get a second opinion, to see if I'm on par with a more experienced editor, and it turns out that I am :D HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not rocket science, I'll tell you that much :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

JAO

Ok., this is link to the World text of the Charter as on 2008-11-07 from the official web site of JAO ([28]). Aotearoa (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this one will work great! I'll be adding it to the citation template shortly. Thanks for finding it! For some reason the only thing I was able to find on the official website was a .rar archive.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

NVO retired

Hey Ezhik, have you notice User_talk:NVO. Seems he has retired from Wiki...bad to lose such a great contributor as he has been. What could/should we be doing about this? :( --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to catch him and whoop his ass back here. I mean, c'mon, look at his list of most recent contributions—the retirement is completely uncalled for! I really hope nothing serious happened in his real life, but I don't know how else to explain it. Would you like to shoot him? I mean an email?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I have shot him off an email and explained to him that it is unacceptable for him just to leave like this. If it is real life problems, then I understand, but if it is onwiki crap, it needs to be sorted out. Will see what he has to say in due course. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he might have just got tired or moved on... in which case we are screwed...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Bashkortostan

I was in the middle of fixing it. You are fast, I only need 30 seconds to complete it. Template:Cities and towns in Bashkortostan is now not correct. Districts are not cities and I think they should also go in template.Starzynka (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why we have "Cities and towns in Bashkortostan" (listing only cities and towns) and not "Bashkortostan" (listing cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and administrative districts) is because most of the district links are red, which makes the navigational template mostly red and not so, well, navigational. This situation is unlike that with {{Chukotka Autonomous Okrug}}, where all of the links are blue.

All in all, I have no objections whatsoever to converting all "cities and towns of Foo" templates into the "Foo" templates, but there is simply no practical use for a navigational template that can't be navigated (because most of the links are red). This was discussed on several occasions before, and the general consensus was to develop the "Foo" templates only when the majority of its links are blue.

Sorry to jump in the middle of your work, but hopefully the explanation above is to your satisfaction. Please let me know if you have any further questions, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

They will not be red in two minutes time. I start them. You gave no time. If article on Russian wikipedia need help transferring info, I don't speak Russian.Starzynka (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very impatient. You don't give two minutes for people to edit. I find articles on Russian wikipedia, I need help uploading locator maps for raions for a start.Starzynka (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not so much impatient as I am irked by the amount of garbage you've just created. Neither of these "articles" now contain any more information than a link to that article would, which is no a good practice at all. If you want to expand them yourself, I'll be the first to cheer you, but if you expect that someone else will immediately start transferring info from the Russian Wikipedia, you are sadly mistaken. It takes no more effort to create a new article when transferring info than it does to overwrite an existing one-liner. You are not by any chance under the impression that a thought of translating ru_wiki content has not occurred to anyone here in all these year, are you? :)

Anyway, I've moved the template back to {{Bashkortostan}} since, obviously, the "articles" aren't going anywhere. Please consider expanding these articles yourself before you continue on your endeavor to create more useless stubs like that. Nothing personal, but WP:RUSSIA is overwhelmed as is; last thing they need is another dump of crap to clean up.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Give me time! I find maps and some basics in Russian, I think I can work that out. I see error with infobox, coat of arms in bad shade, I have 2007 data not 2002. I add info to stubs nowStarzynka (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, that infobox is due for re-design (it's one of the items on my to-do list coming up shortly), so don't sink too much time into trying to make it work. If you concentrate on text, we can use it later to populated the boxes. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

OK I add 2007 census in article then not box. I find source to reference no worries.Starzynka (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there is no such thing as "2007 Census". The most recent census in Russia was in 2002; you can find the population numbers here. Any 2007 numbers you'll find are going to be estimates. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I want to see your template, I don't want to give up task on districts.Starzynka (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what information you yourself have, but I've created a basic stub model here. If you have something you want to add, please let me know, I'll incorporate it in the model for you. All of the numbers in the model come from the Census document being referenced, and whatever parts you don't have you can simply remove (i.e., if, for example, you can't figure out the borders, just delete the sentence dealing with the borders altogether). This way the flow/layout/formatting will remain correct no matter what. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, perhaps it would be wise to use this model for a couple dozen stubs and then stop and review the progress, making adjustments if necessary. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

How do I find data for population in Russian? If I to be able to copy this set this is good but I need to knowledge of source.Starzynka (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source in Excel format. It is also linked to from the References section in the model. You can simply search for district names in that document; just be careful because some district names are not unique (example).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:13, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have to pass. I'm sorry. It is very difficult to find in big list. Thanks for helping. If I could find names and data easy then I do it, but very difficult to find. If search engine to find title this be easy. If I start articles in your template if I leave the figures to you but start them with small amount at a go, you can to add data after? I be slow so not much work at a time. Maybe 10 articles a go and you add data after but I start in nice format? Starzynka (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can actually trim that list for you purposes. Just delete all lines which are not districts (make sure to leave the federal subjects, too, or you won't be able to say which district is from which federal subject), and you will be left with a relatively short list (there are only about ~1,900 districts in Russia).

Using a search engine for population figures is not a very good idea. The results seem to be from all kinds of sources, many of which are hardly reliable (especially those in English).

Anyway, if the idea of trimming the Census list still does not appeal to you, then I can most certainly add these data later. I have commented out the population sentence in the model; please leave it like that when producing the stubs. This way the sentence in the proper format will still be there for those who can add the actual numbers (be it me or someone else).

And oh, I forgot to thank you for your work with the location maps. I may not be overly excited to see so many district stubs produced at once, but I most certainly appreciate that you uploaded the maps to the Commons where they are now easily available. Thank you for that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Federal Districts

Hey, just a thought about making the federal district pages more user friendly - perhaps the map and the list of federal entities should be side by side. I try to read them, but have to go back from the bottom of the page to the top to see where they are on the map. Don't you think it would help people familiarize themselves better with this (for them) esoteric geography if they could see it right next to each other? Otherwise very useful pages!--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the table layout so the list is to the side of the map, I have no reason to object whatsoever :) However, both the map and the list under it fit just fine on one screen for most people, so I guess I don't quite understand what the problem seems to be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:00, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one of them is a featured article using a table I believe. Dudeman by all means sort them!

I'm not sure how to do that with a table. Its just a technical question, if others have a screen even thinner than mine, it would be easier to use this, otherwise really valuable resource if the list and the map were horizontal. I don't want to screw it up.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal locators

Hola Mr. Ezhiki. You'll be pleased to know we have our first Russian svg locator for Kalingrad see Gvardeysk. If possible I'll see if we can get the Russian federal locator to appear in the top left of the svg so we can combine two in one. What would you say then to rmeoving the seperate regional map above it? I mean, after all, if you click the globe you can see where in Russia it is anyway and it would help declutter the infobox? Let me know. Best Himalayan 16:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! As for the regional map, I can't easily remove it for just one federal subject (that'll require quite some tweaking) and I am hesitant to remove it altogether, because there are ups and downs to both approaches (having a separate regional map or relying on the globe). I'll see what I can do, though, because if both locators are combined into one, it makes absolutely no sense to have a separate regional map; and you are right, the shorter we can make this box, the better.

I will probably try tweaking the infobox in such a way that it only displays one map when a combined locator (such as the one you are trying to get for Kaliningrad Oblast) is available and two when no such locator is available. It'll be automated; we'll just need to be updating the lookup subtemplate as new combined locators become available. Might take a while though. Would that be an acceptable compromise to you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:15, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

That would be cool, spiffing even. What the idea is that eventually we have svg maps like Template:Location map Germany Baden-Württemberg for all of the Russian federal subjects so we can do away with the regional set locators and have one map. I understand though it may be difficult to do away with the province locator one at a time. Given NNW's large workload, I anticipate it may take many months to obtain the maps, given that NNW still is working on producing the remaining svgs for single countries. But whatever you can do, my idea eventually is to have quality svgs (with pin capitions) and just that map only with the Russia federal subject highlighted in the corner like the Baden one... Himalayan 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. In general, two maps is an overkill, and if they can be combined, that's the way to go. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine I think. The problem of course is that Russia is so Gid damn HUGE!! So fitting things on maps with Russia will always be terribly difficult given that it tracends 11 time zones? I think that map combined with the globe will make understanding where it is not a problem.. Himalayan 20:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian district

Dear Ezhiki, the templates on russian administrative units are the only ones I have come across to use ^{[citation needed]} as a default. Can you provide the link to the discussion you have mentioned. Inwind (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit surprised with the question, actually. Sourcing the information is covered by WP:REF#When to cite sources, which asks for all unreferenced statements to be either referenced, or removed, or marked as needing citation. It is not technically feasible to mark uncited statements in the body of the article, but the infoboxes, which condense the most important stats from the article in one prominently displayed place, are one location where it makes perfect sense to cite the information... and it's not too hard to implement automated fact tagging. Oftentimes the infobox is the only place a reader would even look; surely it's important we comply with our own policies regarding referencing?

The fact tags in this template were implemented properly, and citations are only requested for the pieces which present reasonable doubt as to their accuracy when left unsourced. We are not mandating, for example, that the "official website" field must be sourced, although if one desires, one can reference it as well—the template provides means to do that. It is, however, important to source something like the administrative center or the latest population figures.

The bottom line is that "uncommon" does not equal "unthinkable" does not equal "should be removed". Are you seeing any problems with the template these tags cause? Any problems that can't be addressed by actually adding a reference or removing the piece altogether? If so, please let me know, I'll happily fix them for you.

The discussion I was referring to can be found here and here (sorry the threads are somewhat intertwined and not in one place).

Also, I am awaiting your response in regards to the test page you created.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Pil'gyn

This article has been hanging around for ages and I have included it in the list of settlements for Shmidtovsky District, however, I can find no evidence of its existence. I wonder whether the creator got confused as I was of the opinion that Pil'gyn, simply meant Lagoon, and Zaliv simply meant Strait and he has taken generic terms and thought that they were specifics. I wonder whether this is an article that should be deleted? Fenix down (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Pil'gyn means (if it means "lagoon", is it in the Chukchi language? definitely not in Russian though), but it is most certainly not a populated place of any sort. There is a river by that name (albeit in Beringovsky District, not in Shmidtovsky) and a few straits that have "Pilgyn" as the part of the name. The only place with the name remotely similar to this is Meynypilgyno, but it is also in Beringovsky District.

The coordinates in the article point to a non-descript location in the sea, and the external links provided aren't very helpful either. If some real place was meant when this article was created, it's impossible to pinpoint given the information available. My recommendation would be to prod this article—if someone can shed any light as to the intent of that page, they'll have seven days to do so. Otherwise, the article should go as in its present form it's hardly of any use. I'd normally ask the creator first, but he seems to be inactive since July.

Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

New article template

Thanks for your kindness. If I start like Charodinsky District can you add census and location after? I have hid text behind page for you to enter later, make easy for you. If I say, start a republic at one go and then wait until you complete then I start another and work in stage. You follow? I don't want to be nuisance for you, I happy to work in stage as this, even 10 article at one go. I promise not to make bad stubs for your cleaning later and not many at one time. I happy to begin a set at one go and wait days until you fix. How is this to you? Starzynka (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such approach will work fine. It certainly won't take me long to add the population figures and I don't expect I'll need to hold you up for days :)

A few suggestions about Charodinsky District (and the districts to follow), though:

instead of typing out the coordinates, could you, please, just insert them into the infobox? The parameters for the coordinates are latd, latm, lats, longd, longm, and longs. I realize the coordinates are for the administrative center, but they will usually work just fine for the whole district.
leave the pop_census field completely empty. There is no need for a question mark to show (it's not a good style). An empty field won't show up at all until the actual number is supplied, which is more preferable.
when you leave some infobox parameters blank, please omit the "=" sign (i.e., use "loc_name1" instead of "loc_name1="). In theory, it shouldn't matter, but in practice having the "=" sign sometimes affects whether or not blank sections are suppressed. I am still trying to work out this bug; in the meanwhile it's better to err on the side of omitting the "=" sign for the blank fields.
if, after creating each stub, you could also go to the article's talk page and add {{WikiProject Russia|class=Stub|importance=Mid}}, that would be greatly appreciated. Tagging the articles helps in many maintenance tasks, and it's really easy to do after creating an article. Partial tagging helps too, but then someone will inevitably have to go back and fill out the missing parameter (which, in this case, is "importance").

Other than that, I think it will work fine! I am about to leave now (and I am not usually editing during the weekends), but if you start your first batch, I'll make sure to go through it on Monday. Thanks again for your help and cooperation! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:03, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Sure Ezhiki, I be happy to do that. I tag all article I start too with Russia project. Yes it produce error when I not add census figure. I follow. If I can find coordinates of admin centre I add in box. I start a few more now, by Monday I start all in Dagestan and wait and then other etc in set so no big task at once nice and easy. Good night to you. Starzynka (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Dagestan done. Before I start on Kabardino-Balkaria, is correct term selo for village in this region?Starzynka (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to add population figures to the districts of Dagestan today. As for Kabardino-Balkaria (and, indeed, for all other federal subjects), it doesn't work like that. There is no one term for how to call a village anywhere. Each federal subject defines a list of types of rural localities independently. In Kabardino-Balkaria, there are seven such types (although selo is indeed the most common). In each particular case, you need to know what the type of a place actually is; you can't deduce or just guess it. For the administrative centers of the districts, the type of the administrative center is specified in that same Census document. For the purpose of you doing the stubs, please just leave that field empty; I'll be taking care of it at the same time I do the populations. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:43, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Next I do Kabardino-Balkaria, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia. I blank out settlement type then.Starzynka (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done the three. I could not find capital town of Prikubansky District, Karachay-Cherkess Republic however. Something like Caucasus maybe. Tomorrow I upload district maps of Kalmykia to commons until you complete. A good evening to you.Starzynka (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The administrative center of that district is Kavkazsky (settlement). Also, can I ask you to please not do than one federal subject at a time? I know that the KBR only has ten, but the administrative-territorial structures of the federal subjects often differ quite a bit, so the model I made for one might not be suitable for another. Nothing that an hour of work and two bottles of vodka wouldn't fix, but if it can be avoided, why not avoid it.

I'll be going through these three in the next few days and will let you know when I'm done. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Provinces of Mongolia

I did a research on the article Provinces of Mongolia which after four days work by Ran and Tobias Conradi in March 2005 achieved a naming consistent with usage in WP and consistent with the category and the individual articles. Later copy paste moves and other things happened to the page, most of it reverted. On Dec 2006 one user without discussion moved that article to Aymguud of Mongolia leaving inconsistency behind. In March 2007 you moved it to Aimags of Mongolia at least eliminating Mongolian plural. You fixed the redirect, but now there is no possibility of moving back. Can you please re-introduce the situation that existed before the unilateral move of Dec 2006? Maybe have a look at Talk:Aimags of Mongolia. For what I can see in Category:Country subdivisions by continent oblast, krai, okrug at least for the Soviet Union and Russia are the only main country subdivision terms that are not native English but are accepted to be used in article titles. There is no complexity of terms for the subdivisions of Mongolia. CIA, FIPS, Statoids use the term "province". For Inner Mongolia the term is translated. I think keeping the situation your move created is not good. TrueColour (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I moved "Aymguud" to "Aimags" as per WP:MON (in its 2006 form). In general, I have no objections to this article being moved back to "Provinces", especially considering the fact that neither "aymguud" nor "aimag" can be considered an English term. For what it's worth, what you say on Talk:Aimags of Mongolia makes good sense to me, but I don't see a consensus on that page, so I would be really uncomfortable just moving the page back on my own. Since I am a fan of due process, my recommendation to you would be to please submit a move request for this page; I will gladly support it (unless good reasons for not moving it arise during the process, which looks doubtful). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

There is already a move request for that page. Chanheigeorge started it. I do not see a 2006 form of WP:MON. In its current form which it is in since Sept 2008 it supports "province" more than "aimag". Maybe, if you are fan of due process you must even revert your move, since even in March 16, 2007, - the day of your move, it supported "province" more than "aimag". TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot move the article while an ongoing move request is pending resolution. As for WP:MON, you are right that my move was primarily because "y" needed to be replaced with "i". At any rate, whatever the past reasons, since the issue is being re-examined right now, that's the process we need to stick to (in spirit of WP:CCC). With that in mind, I have just cast my vote to support the move request. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Birulka

Посмотри пжлст, а то чёрт ногу сломит в инфобоксе населённого пункта.--Andrey! 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Починил. Проблема в основном в том, что параметры от старой версии этого инфобокса хоть в целом и поддерживаются, но разобраться, как они пересекаются с новой версией довольно непросто (а документировать их я не стал, ибо нефиг их плодить). В будущем рекомендую сразу воспользоваться новым набором параметров. А за статью спасибо! Добавил себе в список редактирования, через год-другой доберусь :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:11, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Закончил многострадальный шаблон

{{Stations of the railway with transfer on sea transport}}. Посмотри пожалуйста, можно ли по параметру разворачивания группы категорию присваивать?--Andrey! 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Мда, не маленький шаблон получился... Насчёт категории посмотрю, но только уже не сегодня.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:43, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Обдумав вопрос, я способа присваивания категории по параметру разворачивания не вижу (даже теоретически). Но могу ошибаться.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:12, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Беру слова назад. Всё можно. Баги не тестировал, но вроде бы работает→User:Ezhiki/Template и User:Ezhiki/Template/test (пример использования). Добавил только Азербайджан и Беларусь; остальные можно добавить также по аналогии.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Пускай полежит, я пока закончил Roman Mashkov, на днях посмотрю как это использовать. Если будет возможность, пробегись по шаблонам внизу статьи одним глазом.--Andrey! 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article

Hey Ezhiki, I am currently working on an article at User:Russavia/Sandbox1 relating to an Argentinian cargo airline. Part of the history of the airline includes arms smuggling as part of the Iran-Contra affair, and in 1981 one of its aircraft was shot down. Unfortunately, the details of that incident I am not able to cover the article, as it would be covered as part of my topic ban. I would like to take this particular article to DYK as soon as I have finished it, but without those details it is pointless. Would you be so kind as to have a look at the article, and add any information which you may be able to find to the article once I place it in namespace, so that I can post it to DYK. From what I can see, there will only be a few sentences required.

You are probably thinking, how in hell I came to do this article? I have been going thru the 12,000 photos which we have available to us, and have been uploading some to Commons, and utilising them as part of writing new articles (even if only stubs) for airlines we don't currently have articles for. It was only after doing a little more research, that I was able to determine that this Argentinian airline, which was involved in the US-backed Iran-Contra affair, had a little bit of notable history that was covered by my topic ban...but I am not going to let that ban stop me from creating content, hence I pushed ahead with it anyway.

If you could assist with this, I would be appreciative. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming issue

I feel this should be a redirect, but I don't know where I should move the current text, and judging from the article's edit history, that would be contentious, go figure. Can you help? Colchicum (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think it should redirect to? From what I see, this is a separate party, and the text about it is located under an appropriate title. That the name of the party is so similar to others is unfortunate, but we can't really do much about it. Is there a larger article you think this could be merged to? Is this party even notable (an official website hosted on narod does not inspire much confidence, but I could be wrong)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

I mean it should redirect to the CPSU. See here. Most of the incoming links are about that party, it is far more notable and so on. I am not even sure that the present-day tiny virtually unknown party is notable enough for Wikipedia, I've never heard of it before. But it is there, so how should it be renamed? All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) (Russia)? It doesn't look good. Certainly it shouldn't usurp the name All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) on Wikipedia. But the author of the page seems passionate about it. Colchicum (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me right away, but you are right, this indeed should be redirecting to the CPSU. Assuming the modern-day party is notable (which I kind of doubt), it would probably be best to move it to All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks), Russia, and link to it from All-Union Communist Party, which would be a disambiguation page. At the top of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article we can add another hat notice stating that "'All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks)' redirects here; for other meanings see All-Union Communist Party". It's still a kind of awkward solution, but I can't think of a much better one, given how all those names are similar.

А вообще я конечно валяюсь с этих коммунистов — у каждой партии в программе прописано про мир во всём мире, всеобщую солидарность и единение, а в жизни — целая куча мелких партеек, которые только и делают, что друг с другом грызутся и делятся как амёбы...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Требуется совет

Как лучше: переместить вниз табличный раздел в {{Shipbuilding and shipping on the Lena River}} или оставить его как есть?--Andrey! 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Мне кажется, что лучше всего будет табличку вообще убрать. Это же всё-таки шаблон навигации, а не обзорная статья в таблицах и списках. В крайнем случае разобрать табличку на две строчки —boat types и places. Даты же и прочее будут в собственно статьях.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:29, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Shkolnaya Street

Hello! Your submission of Shkolnaya Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Есть мнение о шаблонах населённых пунктов

Доделал статью Design 414N tankers. Хочу привлечь твоё внимание к карте. Можно в infobox населённого пункта нанести зелёными точками районные центры областей, а красным выделять нужный объект. Это повысит значимость карты и позволит избавится от навигационного шаблона с райцентрами.--Andrey! 16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Технически это выполнимо, но я не уверен, что на практике это хорошая идея. В некоторых субъектах десятки районов; у них вся карта будет усыпана зелёными точками и разглядеть на ней единственную красную будет не так-то просто. К тому же шаблон существенно раздуется (поскольку для каждого субъекта надо будет обрабатывать набор из как минимум десятка координат), да и для крупных городов (республиканского/краевого/областного/окружного значения) смысла указывать районные центры на карте нет. Но я ещё подумаю; мысль интересная.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Uploading files

Hi Ezhiki! I was wondering whether you could tell me about copyrights in relation to some types of files please, I have looked at the relevant pages in this page, but was wondering whether you could clarify a couple of things for me. I have a few images of maps of some of the villages and stamps that relate to some of the chukotka articles. Obviously I wouldn't flood a small article with a load of pics, but I was wondering what the copyright status was on maps and stamps. Do they fall under the heading of "official documents" If these are the sort of things that can be freely used, could yousuggest a suitable license to append to the image? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite lousy with the copyrights, but am fairly positive that each such image will need to be reviewed on its own merit. Maps would not normally fall under the "official documents" category, unless they are included as an appendix to a legislative document (a law, a resolution, a decree, etc.). Stamps probably don't either, although I can't say for sure (this one, for example, is claimed to fall under that exact exemption you cited). Can you tell me in more detail where the images you have in mind come from? I'll be able to do a more targeted research then. For stamps, are they of Soviet issue? If so, which year? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Districts

OK, follow the order of Template:Administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia. Next is Karelia, followed by Khakassia.Starzynka (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:38, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow I do Karelia. A good evening to you.Starzynka (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I follow. It is quicker for me to quickly start and then adjust after. Give me 30 minutes and done.Starzynka (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we can continue with Khakassia and then go back to the others at later date.Starzynka (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's just that having stuff like this sitting around is hardly a compliment to our work :) I'll make a model for Khakassia after I'm done going through the Karelia's districts. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Nizhnyaya Toyma

Nope. I created this page during and in order to fend off, as you may possibly remember, an assault of redlink-hating disambig purists. - Altenmann >t 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, crap, I now remember. Thanks anyway. Arkhangelsk Oblast is due to publish an updated list of inhabited localities some time before 2013; hopefully it'll shed some light then. For now, I'm going to leave this stub alone, unless something new comes up. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:23, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Moscow Times archives

I've noticed that Moscow Times articles expire pretty quickly, and the archives are pay-only. Webcitation.org doesn't seem to work with the site, but freezepage.com does seem to work. Do you happen to know if there is a way to auto-archive everything on the site? (I believe this is legal?) I think there is a bot somewhere, but it probably only works for webcitation.org? Offliner (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have a bot that supports freezepage. You might want to try probing the owners of this or this one to see whether they'd be able to add such support; it sure would be helpful! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

Hello. WP:RUSSIA's assessments page has recently been re-worked and no longer needs updates by a bot. A {{bots|deny=WP 1.0 bot}} provision was added to the code to that effect. The bot, however, ignored it. Can someone to please look into what went wrong? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:57, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

If your project would like to maintain a separate table than the one maintained by the bot, you should simply place it in a different location. For example, a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. All the pages underneath Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team are maintained by the WP 1.0 bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know that. Will do. Thanks for the response.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Khakassia done

Finished. Uploaded locators to commons but bad colours. blue and dark green but better than nothing. Sorry for delay been busy at work.Starzynka (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the delay; we are not on any kind of schedule here :) I'll do a pass on Khakassia, will create a model for Komi, and will let you know. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Finished, although I have to upload maps. Maybe tomorrow. Thanks.Starzynka (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll start with my pass soon.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Simenga

That's odd. It is featured on the map like a major town, you know as Chita or any of the others. If you are certain it is not a fulltime settlement I'll db-author it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain. The place (using either spelling) is not mentioned in any legal document going back to the 1990s (not once!), a number of historical reference works on the administrative-territorial structure of Irkutsk Oblast never mention it, and of all the atlases I checked this one is the first one to show anything at all (and that "anything" is a seasonal winter settlement; quite possibly abandoned). I admit I can't with 100% certainty state that it was never populated full-time, but I am quite certain it was never a major town (not even a decent-size village)—those are all accounted for pretty well; even those dating back a few centuries. All in all, this stub is of no value. Thanks for speedying it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:34, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

The only on-line mention of Сименга in Russian is as a location from which one witness (out of 152 witnesses listed in the document) saw the Tunguska event of 1908: http://www.tunguska.ru/obzor/catalog/11.html So probably it was just a hunter's winter hut (zimovye) Vmenkov (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen that one, which is one of the reasons why I said I'm not 100% certain it had never been populated full-time. Not of much help for our purposes, though; and it's definitely just a zimovye now, not a populated place...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:51, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

I suspect a sockpuppet

Some problems in Ukrainian politics, this time it is not there fault! At first User:Finrus calls for the renaming of the article on Talk:Verkhovna Rada#Move the article to a new name. No problem there; Finrus thinks the Parliament of Ukraine should not be named Verkhovna Rada on English wikipedia but should be named Supreme Council; so I comment on it that I don't agree. No problem there... Hours later there are mass page moves and changes in articles chancing Verkhovna Rada into Supreme Council by User:WPK using exact the same wording and arguments as Finrus (see [[29]]). Besides that WPK ignores the opinion of others (unless he thinks that the opinion of 2 is consensus while the folk in North-America didn't have a change to express there opinion yet) I suspect he is a sock puppet of Finrus (looks also that the users are in the same time zone and both have an interest in Finnish subjects). What to do? Should I warn this user (users?) first or can I ask you right away to block these dude(s?)? I would like to stress that I wouldn't be against the moves personally, if they would have been the outcome of condenses. It does ignore me that it took freaking ages to change everything back, time I could have spend on improving articles... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mariah-Yulia! Apologies for a belated response, but I don't often log in on weekends and holidays.

Regarding the situation at hand, approaching the user(s) is absolutely the very first thing you need to do. If your inquiry is ignored or if you get a runaround, then your best bet it WP:AN/I. Folks there won't be able to help you with the content disputes (which an "article naming dispute" is kind of a subset of), but you should get help there if the page moves related to this dispute are indeed massive (and especially with the discussion still ongoing). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for the help/advice. Problems with user(?)/uses(?) haven't re-happened till now. Was of-wiki for a while too by the way. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mykhailo Kravchuk and probably some other titles

Hello, I've noticed that user Aleksandr Grigoryev continues his strange practice of copy-pasting contents of existing titles and creating new ones with it like he did with Kiev Passenger Railway Station . Could you please look into the matter. Thanks. - Garik 11 (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Garik. I have reverted this copy-paste move and notified the user. If you spot another move like this, please let me know or just go ahead and fix it on your own (I didn't find any other moves after a quick look at the user's most recent contributions). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Kravchuk

The link that you provided me with explanation does not explicitly relates to the actions I performed as the article was created out of its Russian version and, thus, is not precise. Mikhail Kravchuk is improper spelling of the name. The guy was born in the German country of Austria-Hungary and initially his name was spelled as Mychajlo Krawtschuk. Please, note, not the Russian version Mikhail. If we will translate the names why not call him in English way as Michael as that is the English Wikipedia? He was born in the autonomous region of Austria-Hungary, Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, where the Ukrainian language along with the Polish language were respected and name transliterations took place unlike in the Soviet Union where everything was translated into Russian, even given names. Please, consider revision of that issue. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources that support this issue Mykhailo Pilipovich Krawtchouk

Aleksandr, I have no opinion regarding whether the current spelling is proper or improper nor am I, frankly, too interested in finding out what the best title for this article should be. However, what most certainly is improper is the way you went about changing the title. As I said before, and as this guideline would attest, "if you just want to change the title of an article do not copy-paste – use the move tool or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead." My revert was not about which spelling is the best, it was about our licensing requirements, preserving the history of the contributions, and proper procedure. You are welcome to move the article to whatever title you think works best, just please do it properly and not via a copy-paste move. If you need assistance with the technical side of this procedure, please let me know, I'll be happy to help. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the truth is yours. I agree that the history of contributions needs to be preserved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:27, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yubileyny, Moscow Oblast

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yubileyny, Moscow Oblast, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend. - Darwinek (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And in return, I wish you a very merry, prosperous, and productive New Year! In the new year, I hope to see you around a lot more often :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

A happy Christmas to you too Ezhiki. Mari El is done. There is a map on the other wikipedia but it is in Russian and isn't a highlight of the actual district. Thanks.Starzynka (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Starzynka! Best wishes in the new year to you, too. I'll try to go through Mari El before the end of this one. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

C Наступающим Новым Годом! Весёлого Рождества! И 25 декабря, и 7 января! --Ds02006 (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо! Вас тоже с праздниками!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Well, it'd be swell if instead of the cheap-o compliments you'd just quit your "retirement" and returned to editing, but I guess I'll have to settle with what's available (which is, by the way, cool beyond words—thanks!). Best of wishes to you in the New Year, and I hope that it's not the last time we see you around :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

C nastupayushevym novom godom - Can you please attach the Federal subject maps when possible as asked for on the template talk page User:Ala.Foum

Sure, will do. I check for the new maps every now and then, but it looks that they added quite a few since the last time I did this. Thanks for the nudge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:24, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

^ History of the RAF, Chapter 7 – Cultural & Organizational Heritage, p. 370

[1] History of the RAF, Chapter 7 – Cultural & Organizational Heritage, p. 370

[1]

Tomb of the Unknown Rapist

How would you translate this?

Unprotection of 2012

Reposted from userpage

Possible favour?

#4

...

Can you comment please

Governor General of Moscow

Vandalisme

A little help please

Alaska purchase assessment question

Dabs

FYI Khabarovsk

Neutral notice of RfC

Can you provide some assistance here please

Can you please protect these

Kings of Chaos (album)

Copy of User:Noroton/opinions

Tyumen

User page redirects

Alexander Oparin

List of the massive headache

Zvyozdny Gorodok

Bot

KBR

Galenki

OK, time for you......

Re: Korobeiniki

Привет от Андрей!

Some books I've found

Moscow collage

Incorrect wikilink

Fort Stikine FYI

Помоги мне с шаблоном

DYK for APEC Russia 2012

Russian American romanizations etc.

Province of Bolzano/Bozen

Где бы взять корректора...

Set indices

WikiProject Russian history

Fair Use

Yefremov and Efremov

Privislinsky Krai

1993 Russian constitutional crisis

Cooky

Your cookie has been regurgitated

AssessorTags

Could you be the critical voice?

Talkback

Talkback

Would you mind

News wire? You think?

Nina, Mozambique

Location map

CodeFixer

Template:Prime Ministers of Russia

{{Saint Petersburg Ring Road}}

Could you provide some opinion here please

Portal talk:Russia/Things you can do

So you know

APEC 2012

That database

Look over this if you can

Moscow Oblast maps

I loved your comment

Economy of Murmansk Oblast

Patronymic as disambig

Non-working links of Russia subdivisions

Assessments

Recent move for Aleksandr Vishnevsky (actor)

Flag of Dagestan

Template loops

Draft of new article

Talkback

Talkback

Disambiguation by patronymic

{{coord missing}} in templates

Ice Hockey World Championships

Talkback