User talk:Ezhiki/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Ezhiki! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Hey man, thanks a lot for voting, I see you beat me to the response ;) If you need anything, just give me a shout. :) - FrancisTyers 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney

I would say "how do you know he's not a Wikipedian", but I think I'll just tip my hat to you. I figured it would be a while before anyone noticed my edit on Wikipedia:Wikipedians somewhere unspecified in the United States of America, let alone reverted it. If I had the power, I would award you a Barnstar. --Mareino 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty funny, and could even be OK on April 1. Still, even if he were a Wikipedian, the link should have been to his user page, not to the article namespace :)
Speaking of barnstars, anyone around here can award whatever s/he wants to anyone else, if a good enough reason arises. Not that I am soliciting an award from you (a watchlist patrol is a duty expected of an admin—it's definitely not something barnstar-worthy), but I think you'd like to know that for future occasions if you see someone going above and beyond one's duties.
All in all, take care, and please do not attempt such jokes in future—I know a few people who would be giving you a lecture about "inappropriate behavior" right about now :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your light warning. It's been a long day at work, and for one weak moment, I found myself sympathizing with the Wiki vandals. Won't happen again ... within the next 3 months or so. --Mareino 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox_Language

happy new year! Template:Infobox_Language seems to be blocked from moving. At least I don't have the move button anymore. I could not find who did it and why this was done / which policy was used to justify this move block. It seems to be there since User:Cyrius moved it the 2nd time. So he has the admin power to preserve the status he thinks is right. With your admin power can you check what happened? Did he block? Where can I call for unblock? Maybe you can do it - but well I don't want to ask you too much here. thx - so long Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, Tobias. Hope all is going well for you.
The template was protected from being moved by Cyrius on January 6; the following reason was given: user keeps moving this elsewhere and replacing with a disambiguation page for no apparent reason. You, by the way, can check things like that yourself at Special:Log—you can look up all or some of the logs by username or article name (note that capitalization there is important). A quick glance at the edit history shows that he protected it most likely because it was moved back and forth, with discussion going on chiefly in the edit summaries. I will have too look further into this to dig the details; I am hesitant unprotect it right away as I do not yet have sufficient information about what's happened, even though the "for no apparent reason" part does not feel exactly right. I would, however, recommend, to list the template at WP:RM first, after which protection can be lifted (provided that neither you nor Netoholic are going to move it again until the process is complete).
I'll keep researching the matter. Apart from your and Netoholic's talk pages, is there a discussion thread I could look at anywhere else? Take care,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Template_talk:Language - on 2005-12-12 it was suggested to move to Template:Infobox language a more standard name for infoboxes. I suggested to use uppercase "L". The move was blocked by User:Netoholic who on 2005-12-22 created a template there without telling anyone not in the template talk nor Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages. He even started applying the template to articles without notice. I moved the Netoholic template to give space for the move of the original language template. Cyrius reverted with a spamming complain (the Netoholic template was used in 15 or so articles at this time). I was already cleaning up this, then I reverted Cyrius. He (ab)used his admin power to block further moves. I would even like to start an RfC about Cyrius behavior, because I am annoyed by admins that use their power in conflicts to get their opinion go through. I allready noted WP:RM with move proposal of the original infobox to Infobox_Language. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tobias. I'll look into this later (see my comment to Kim below as to why not now).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cont'd at "Infobox:Language issues" section below

[edit] Sloppy statement and answers to questions

Argh, yes. I answered on the basis that people would come and discuss with me, (as advertised, apparently), but people seem to instead treat statements as written in stone, and are just voting.

In fact, you're quite encouraged to ask for clarifications or take the time to discuss issues you agree or disagree on with the candidate. Just not on the voting pages themselvesv I guess.

In any case, voting will be ongoing for a while yet, so feel free to ask any questions where you think I've been unclear.

Hmm, and if you have a minute, maybe point out where and how I could flesh out my statement a bit? <puppydog look>

Kim Bruning 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kim! Sorry if my comment sounded a bit harsh, but it was intended to :) I'd love to ask each candidate questions that bother me, but, with 50+ candidates, it took me four straight hours just to read through all the statements/answers to the questions, trying to figure out whom to support and whom not to. As you can imagine, in such circumstances candidate statements are really important, and yours just looked as if you didn't really care. Since I know you can do much better than that, I left a comment that probably was not too pleasant-sounding. As far as my recommendation to fleshing your statement, I would recommend to scrap it altogether and write it a-new (yes, I think it's that bad, sorry).
I'll think over the questions I have for you and ask them later, when my eyes stop hurting from the four-hour session of intense staring into the screen :) Meanwhile, take care and best of luck to you with your ArbComm run!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok! I've rewritten my candidate statement. Hopefully it's to your liking. Thanks for your advice! Kim Bruning 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kim. This new statement is a lot better and answers all the questions I had.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry

You stated on my ArbCom vote page that my "recent behavior leaves [you] with little choice" but to oppose. Could you please explain to me what aspect of my recent behavior has forced your hand in this manner? Kelly Martin (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, my comment, just as the comments of most other opposing people, referred to the recent userbox controversy. I hate to join the lynch mob in this, especially because I myself believe that many userboxes are crap that does not benefit encyclopedia-building (or community-building) efforts in anyway, but the way you handled the matter did not strike me as appropriate for an ArbComm member. Whatever your reasons were, I hope you will not resort to unilateral actions in the future and wish you best of luck with your run. I do otherwise find you as an exceptionally good candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to you be more specific. In what way wwere my actions not "appropriate from an ArbComm member"? What do you think would be appropriate for an ArbCom member? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I would also add that ArbCom members have no opportunity for unilateral action (nothing happens at the ArbCom without at least four people agreeing), so I don't understand why your concern about any tendency I might have toward unilateral action would influence your judgment of my competency to serve as an Arbitrator. (In actuality, not being on ArbCom will greatly expand my opportunities for unilateral action, as I will be less constrained by not having the responsibilities of that position.) Could you, perhaps, explain your reasoning here in more detail? Kelly Martin (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to keep my reasoning brief since I figured that by now you are probably sick and tired of hearing the same things over and over again, and whatever I have to say would probably be a repetition of what others already said. According to your comments above, that's not the case, so allow me to elaborate.
The thing that troubled me the most was your decision to delete something as widely used as userboxes without offering a discussion of any sort, based on your decision alone. From what I understood, you did not suggest to delete them, you simply did. Users did not even get as much as a warning that the userboxes were going to be gone. One would expect that an ArbComm member has better judgement than to stir a nest like this. And judgement, as it logically seems, is one thing an arbitrator needs the most. I do not know what prompted you to act unilaterally in the userboxes case, but, regretfully, they are likely to haunt you for a long time to come, and I do see the whole thing as a pretty poor display of judgement. You are right that one arbitrator cannot decide a case outcome, but s/he is certainly in position to influence it.
I hope this was detailed enough. If you still have any questions regarding my vote, or if you think I see something in the wrong light, please do not hesitate to let me know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I have had no opportunity to actually discuss the situation with anyone other than a few friends. Discussion on an RfC is expressly prohibited (although people violate this rule all the time); by adhering to this rule I have apparently offended a number of people who think I should have instead "discussed" the matter on the RfC. Second, I expected some upset feelings, but not the uproar that resulted. I believe that policy supported my actions in the same way policy supported my actions when I started deleting orphaned unlicensed images back in September. That bold move on my part got some complaints, but not many, and led in some small part to my original appointment to the ArbCom. I believed that bold action was required in this situation and that policy was clear. In particular the decision to delete inappropriate userboxes was spurred in large part by recidivists in the userbox community who insist that they have the right to disregard Wikipedia policy (and, incidentially, the law) regarding the use of unlicensed images, a battle I have been fighting for months with some people. (Ironically, some of these people were the ones leading the mob against me on the RfC.) Having a discussion on whether to enforce existing policy seems ridiculous to me. What happened here, as opposed to what happened in September, is that enough people went "OMIGOD MY USERBOX IS GONE" and wanted blood so badly that they were unwilling to listen to reason to form a mob. I failed to anticipate the mob, as I did not realize the extent to which the userbox addiction had spread through the community. (They are not particularily popular with the editors I spend most of my time around.)
I have refrained from posting an "open apology" in large part because I have no desire to appear to be conceding on the underlying issue regarding userboxes, especially those which are used to attack either other editors or to attack specific points of view, and of course those which infringe copyrights, and there were so many people in that feeding frenzy on my RfC that were rabidly defending their rights to say whatever they want however they want that I was that I feared a capitulation would be taken as justification for their clearly inappropriate point of view. Enough time has passed that an apology for not involving more of the community in a discussion beforehand would not be out of line; enough community support for a more moderate position exists to keep the radicals on this point under control. I still believe that the userboxes I deleted should have been deleted and should again be deleted, but I am not going to press the issue at this point as there is a robust and relatively civil debate on the topic now that will, hopefully sometime in our lives, lead to a conclusion. I had also misjudged the degree to which the community has become committed to process, probably because I don't have much to do with deletion anymore (an area where process has become arguably too important). For those two misjudgments, I am willing to apologize.
In any case, I don't think this really pertains at all to my capabilities as an Arbitrator, especially when I have a history as an Arbitrator to look at. I would encourage you to look at my history as an Arbitrator and judge my competency on that basis, instead of relying on what is really an unrelated incident to form your opinion of the merits of my candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kelly, for this quite detailed explanation. It made me realize that I, being affected by the mob mentality, never actually sought to hear your side of the story before voting, taking everything said by the others at face value. Obviously, it's very easy to see how the things "should have been done" in the hindsight.
While your explanations still did not me feel entirely comfortable with casting a support vote, I found them convincing enough to withdraw my opposition. Thank you for providing a reason and taking time to provide your view on the matter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox:Language issues

Tobias Conradi informally asked me to mediate the issues surrounding the (Infobox) (L/l)anguage template. Since I was not involved into the matter, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on. Below please find a summary of the case as I understand it. If something is incorrect or amiss (or afoot :)), please do not make changes but leave a comment below. Thank you.

  1. Per Netoholic, current template Template:Language is in violation of WP:AUM.
    • Netoholic started developing a new template, located at Template:Infobox Language, that would be in compliance with WP:AUM.
      • According to the comments at Template talk:Language, most of the parties involved dislike the new template.
      • According to other comments on the same page, new template does not work properly on Wikipedia mirrors.
        • Netoholic defends it as a work in progress that needs to be done anyway to make the template compliant with WP:AUM.
  2. Per Tobias Conradi, current template (Template:Language) should be moved to Template:Infobox Language, so as to achieve consistency with the naming scheme for other infobox templates.
    • As Netoholic's version is in the way, the move cannot be performed at this time.
    • Netoholic is not willing to move the newly developed template to his userspace or under a different name. He is convinced that his template will eventually be accepted, thus saving the necessity to make corrections to numerous articles that call it.
      • Tobias disagrees.
      • Cyrius apparently agrees with Netoholic's arguments, as he protected the Netoholic's version from being moved.
        • Tobias believes that Cyrius' actions constitute an abuse of his admin priviliges.

At this point of time, I abstained from judging/accusing anybody or taking any actions, as I may still not see the complete picture. Comments would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with Netoholic's arguments, or rather, I take no stand on the issue. I took the action I did because Tobias moved Netoholic's version elsewhere, and overwrote the (at the time) actively-used template with a disambiguation page. My actions were solely to prevent what I saw as a disruption of Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Cyrius, I see what you mean. Tobias agreed to file a WP:RM for the template, so I trust he will no longer attempt to move the template himself until that goes (or does not go) through; and definitely not until we discuss the whole situation (here or elsewhere). Do you mind unprotecting it for now? I can, of course, do it myself, but I think it'll only be fair to let you do it. Again, thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Cyrius is imprecise. At time of his second move and the following move block it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption. I went to WP:RM for the move of Template:Language to Template:Infobox Language, I did not so for the move of "Template:Infobox Language" to "Template:Infobox Language new". So the above assumption that i don't move it anymore because I went to WP:RM is not right. I still think it was kind of abuse and annoying just to block without mentioning / talking / explaining this. Instead of answering my question to an end, Cyrius blamed me for words I used and behaved like the holy father - infailable. This arrogant admin behavior is something I really hate in WP, and now within few month only gave me the third time the feeling of a two class society.
Ezhiki, thanks a lot that you had a look into the issue. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Tobias posted on WP:RM back on Jan 5th. Apparently dissatisfied and impatient, he then moved the page twice on Jan 6th (around 20:13 UTC) immediately after he orphaned it between 19:55 and 20:10. Not only did he move the page, but he oddly replaced the redirect with what can be best described as a disambig page -- something that we just don't do in Template-land. I think he did that specifically because he knew someone (me) couldn't move it back to it's original location. I asked on IRC for assistance, and Cyrius agreed with me and moved it back. For Tobias to say that "it was not used anywhere. So it wasn't a disruption" is disingenuous. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You don't seem to understand the issue. I did not post a request to move your template, I made a request to move the original (in use) template to the standard name, as was proposed some time ago. You created your private template at the place where the original template was meant to be moved. So I was not all "apparently dissatisfied". Try again Neto. Are you a troll?
  • "something that we just don't do in Template-land" - something that most users not do is to replace templates in language articles without telling anyone with a version created in obscurity. And something most users don't do: blockade renaming under considaration by simply creating a template in the place where it was considered to move the official in use template. But hey, you warned us? [1]
You were and are disrupting the work within the language project. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox:Language proposed solution

Folks, please remain calm and don't insult each other. No one is incorrect here and/or tries to do any harm on purpose, you just see the priorities differently, that is all.

After hearing out the comments above, it looks that my original summary is mostly correct. I hereby offer you the following compromise:

  1. Template:Language in its current form obviously violates WP:AUM, which is what Netoholic is trying to fix. WP:AUM states that metatemplates are harmful for the following reasons:
    1. they create extra server load when called (a template nested in another template leads to three server calls—one for each template plus one for the article);
    2. they create very heavy load when edited (every page containing templates need to be updated after the template is edited);
    3. they create possibilities for DoS attacks and for vandalism (if a template is vandalized, all pages that contain it are affected).
  2. Template:Infobox Language, which does not use metatemplates, is inferior to the Template:Language and is in need of much work. Putting it to use in the article will greatly diminish the quality of affected articles.

It is proposed to protect the Template:Language from editing. This measure will address the most important points of WP:AUM—1.2 & 1.3, while preserving the quality and integrity of the articles which already use this metatemplate version. In the meanwhile, the community members currently involved in developing Template:Language should redirect their efforts to assist in development of the Template:Infobox Language. As soon as there is a consensus that the latter template is on par with the former one, all references to the Template:Language should be replaced with Template:Infobox Language.

Please indicate your acceptance of this proposed decision. If you find it unacceptable, please indicate below which portion is not to your liking. Once all involved parties accept it, the decision will be posted at Template talk:Language and Template talk:Infobox Language for the rest of involved parties to see and comment on.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi's comments:

  1. WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM
    • a= avoid, d = don't, n = never
  2. if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template {{{Language}}} to preserve the edit history of the latter.
  3. the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but:

  1. WP:AUM != WP:DUM and WP:AUM != WP:NUM (a=avoid, d=don't, n=never)
    True, but "avoid" also does not mean "ignore when you feel like it". This is a high-profile template after all, the type WP:AUM targeted in the first place. A metatemplate used only by a dozen of article would not have a significant negative effect; this one, however, is intended for use on hundreds of pages. Perhaps we should invite a developer to take a look at this discussion and let us know once and for all if this particular template is problematic enough to be considered a serious AUM violation? So far all we've been doing is second-guessing the policy's intent.
  2. if the Netoholic template is accepted it should be copied into the original template {{{Language}}} to preserve the edit history of the latter.
    If it's accepted and developed to the point of being usable, then histories can be merged at that time. Merging edit histories is a quite simple procedure. If the original template is protected from editing, it will be possible to merge the histories in a very clean way.
  3. the move of the original template to the standard name, has nothing to do with the WP:AUM violation accusations
    True, but trying to solve the AUM violation together with the name standardization saves us all trouble of having to do mass moves/replacements more than once. Wouldn't you agree that it's good for Wikipedia? Every mass action eats resources, and, as it seems, Wikimedia does not have the latter in abundance.

A question for you, Tobias: please tell me what you see wrong with this scenario:

  1. Protect Template:Language from editing;
    1. why can't we develop our template anymore?
  2. develop Template:Infobox Language to the point when it's usable enough to replace old Template:Language;
    1. why don't develop the original template?
  3. mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name and resolving AUM problem for good;
    1. Neto said this is not necessary. Anyway, why wait with mass replace and name standdardizing only because Neto spit is template in our way?
  4. merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records;
    1. can also be done afterwards with Neto's template from wherever merged in.
  5. delete Template:Language.
    1. better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?

The way I see it, the end result will be exactly what you and other editors want, and the process only requires one mass-replacement that needs to be done anyway. Am I missing anything or not?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I integrated my replies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's comments:

I disagree with protecting Template:Language. There is very little chance of vandalism, it's watched closely, and is only on a couple hundred articles. Other than that, your proposal is exactly the strategy I've been trying to convince this group to follow. Merging the histories is just a "feel good" move, since it's perfectly fine if the history sits under a redirect from Language to Infobox_Language, but I'm fine with it if it just gets this group participating on the single dispute holding the process back, that being whether to keep support for the old color scheme (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#The bad side of colors). -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as clarification—I offered protection not because I'm afraid the template is going to be vandalized often and not fixed for long (I'm sure enough people watch after it so it will not), but for the impact the very act of editing it would have. If someone vandalizes it (or even tries to improve it without knowing that a new template is being developed)—it's a couple hundred server calls already, then it's another couple hundred when it's reverted. Which is exactly what WP:AUM aims to prevent. Comments?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's comments, part 2:

Would you please look into the related disruption that Tobias is causing now on a redirect I created? He's repeating the same disruptive behavior as he did with the page move fiasco. We don't use disambigs in the template namespace. I originally created this redirect to prevent duplication of effort and help with typos. I am close to requesting blocks for disruption, so maybe you can help him stop screwing around. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued you created the redirect on 2005-12-31 to your template to prevent us from moving our template as proposed on 2005-12-12. Maybe you request a block of yourself after in hidden creating your Infobox Language and applying it to several articles? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Infobox templates, the standard naming for infoboxs is "Template:Infobox Foo" (upper-case), so "Template:Language" would never be appropriately moved to "Template:Infobox language". I created Template:Infobox Language on 12/22. I created the redirect on 12/31, as I said, to prevent typos - something I do often.
Here lies the difference between your actions and mine... one would be hard pressed to say my redirect was not in good faith. On the other hand, your repeated disruptions with these templates, with the page moves above and now these edits to the redirect, are less obviously in good faith. -- Netoholic @ 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
On 2005-12-12 I suggested using uppercase L. One could argue that your private and hidden creation of Template:Infobox Language was only made to hinder us to move. And effectly that's what it does. [2] That's assuming bad faith, but after you implemented your template in hidden in several articles it looks as if you tried to abuse creation of the standardname template to accomplish your goals. Secondly there is no policy to create Template:Infobox foo redirects for all existing Template:Infobox Foo. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
after you implemented your template in hidden in several articles it looks as if you tried to abuse creation of the standardname template to accomplish your goals. Is it possible that Netoholic needed to change a few articles to point to his template for test purposes? That would definitely not be bad faith, although a warning, of course, would have been nice.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ezhiki's comments:

Folks, would you please lay petty bickering aside for a little while? Does it really matter who created what and when and why and for what purpose, if in the end all we need to sort out is the final result? It is really not that interesting to find out what your (Tobias' and Netoholic's) original thoughts were—what matters is that you were trying to achieve pretty much the same goal in different ways. The resolution of issues outlined in the comments immediately above would go a long way to entertain your egos, but at the same time it hinders achieving the end result you both so eagerly are looking for. The longer you argue about something as unimportant as who should the blame be put on, the more time passes without any real work done. What are your priorities? I sure hope that in your edits and actions you put Wikipedia's interests before your personal satisfaction.

Now that I'm done with scolding :), let's address more immediate concerns. Here are the answers to the questions Tobias asked:

  1. Protect Template:Language from editing;
    • why can't we develop our template anymore?
      • As it was mentioned before, every edit to a metatemplate leads to a great number of server calls in each affected article and purges the squid caches, thus increasing access time and server load (which is what WP:AUM tries to prevent). To continue developing the original template will require a lot of editing before the metatemplate evolves into something structurally simpler but just as efficient. Nothing, by the way, prevents you from creating an exact copy of the original template and continuing to work on it under a different title. It will still remain a metatemplate for a while, but the harmful effects will be minimized as the copy will not be used on hundreds of pages, stressing the servers after being edited each time. Once the metatemplate is redesigned, all articles can be mass-updated to point to it.
  2. develop Template:Infobox Language to the point when it's usable enough to replace old Template:Language;
    • why don't develop the original template?
      • Same reason as above. You can develop the original template as a copy at another location before article references are mass-updated.
  3. mass-replace all links to Template:Language with the links to new Template:Infobox Language, thus standardizing the infobox name and resolving AUM problem for good;
    • Neto said this is not necessary. Anyway, why wait with mass replace and name standdardizing only because Neto spit is template in our way?
      • If original template is moved to the new name and all articles are immediately changed to point to it, it will not affect the AUM problem in any way (you'll still have a metatemplate used in a couple hundred articles), so postponing the move should be done for pretty much the same reasons as above.
  4. merge histories of Template:Language and Template:Infobox Language to preserve records;
    • can also be done afterwards with Neto's template from wherever merged in.
      • See above reasoning. Plus, does not really matter when histories are merged?
  5. delete Template:Language.
    • better use as redirect, because referenced in several talk pages?
      • Good idea; I forgot about the talk pages. Agree.

All in all, to repeat myself, it is not a priority to settle personal disagreements you folks have with each other. I trust that as adults both committed to Wikipedia you are pretty capable of settling them yourselves, preferrably in a civil way. All that matters now is to close this incident, hopefully with a compromise solution. The very nature of compromise is that neither side likes it, remember? :) If you think my proposed solution does not benefit Wikipedia (as opposed to "does not make me feel good"), please let know here why. I can see how it does not address personal issues you have with each other, but it looks pretty darn good in the big picture.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out several times the move of the currently applied (official/ true / in use) Language template to a standard naming had originally nothing to do with WP:AUM. Netoholic blocks the move to standard name by having put his template in the way. Template developement can be done in user space or at any other name. Don't mix the two issues. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, you are looking in the past (what happened). I am trying to look into the future (how to sort everything out to both parties' liking. Besides the two issues are interrelated—solving the separately is possible but not terribly efficient.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
i look in the past because I said "as pointed out several times?" Why is is not efficient to move the Neto box to another name? I can do so in 10 secondes. Further 10 seconds to move the original template and than some time to move the subtemplates. Whenever the infobox is applied to a new article it can get the standard named template. I think this is more effecient than at first insert the ref to Language and later change it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I mentioned the look in the past because you were trying to analyze Neto's prior actions instead of ways on how to move on from the situation we already have.
The reason why moving a template is not a good solution is because it will do nothing to relieve the tensions you and Neto have. If Neto says here that "yes, moving the template is fine with me; I've changed my mind", then, of course, there will not be much left for me to do—you'll take it from there. He, however, expressed no such wish. As far as I understand, he wants the template(s) to stay where it (they) are now. So, from here:
  • Why is is not efficient to move the Neto box to another name?
    Because he does not want it moved, but you do. What is the purpose of this move, by the way? I understand it is because you want to continue working on a new, non-metatemplate version of the template at the location where it would have consistent name (i.e., "Template:Infobox Language"), correct? But he wants the same thing; the only difference is that he wants to continue to work with what's already there. So, it's either you move the template from "Template:Language" to "Template:Infobox Language", or you just work on "Template:Infobox Language" in its present form. Now, let me ask this question again: Does it really matter when the move is completed? If it does, then why does it?
  • I think this is more effecient than at first insert the ref to Language and later change it.
    I did not propose to insert refs to Language and then change them. I proposed to leave the articles in their present state (i.e., if they point to Language, then let them, if not, leave them alone anyway), and to change the refs once the new template is ready.
This all is getting confusing, by the way. May I ask you folks to outline below each of your proposed plans, modeled after the one I have above? That would help us find common points and hopefully come to a solution fairly quick. This discussion is getting too long for the problem it tries to solve. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not propose to insert refs to Language and then change them.
  • how than can I add the template to new language articles?
  • What is the purpose of this move, by the way?
  • as pointed out from the very beginning: Name standardization
  • The reason why moving a template is not a good solution is because it will do nothing to relieve the tensions you and Neto have.
  • wrong: there would be no more discussions about the standardization move. Of course, his anti-consensus without talk actions (recently he did it again and was quickly reverted) will be ground for tensions as long as he does it. How could this be connected to the move? We move and I let his vandal-like behavior go?
  • I understand it is because you want to continue working on a new, non-metatemplate version of the template at the location where it would have consistent name (i.e., "Template:Infobox Language"), correct?
  • not really correct. This are two different issues. I only want to standardize the name with the move.
  • Does it _really_ matter _when_ the move is completed?
  • Does it matter when we stop editing WP?
  • Does it matter if Neto plays with his template in his user space and not at the standard name place?
  • May I ask you folks to outline below each of your proposed plans, modeled after the one I have above?
  • if Netos template is not implemented by 2006-01-23 move it out the way. Then move the wikiproject approved template to the standard name. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The "CSS method" badly breaks accessibility

In considering a solution, please note that Netoholic's version of the template breaks accessibility of pages by putting junk text into the content of the HTML page, then hiding it from visual browsers using CSS. Examples of page rendering in Lynx can be seen at template talk:Infobox Language#CSS hack reduces accessibility; more relevant discussion is at mediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 23:50 Z

Ezhiki, thx for your post. But we learned something more about some peoples behavior. The thing itself seems almost solved. Look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Language and the comments. best regards and thx for trying to help in this issue(s). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Vote

Hi Ezhiki,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking time to re-work your statement and answers, but, unfortunately, those were not the only reasons why I opposed (I tried to keep my comments brief). Sorry!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ust-Orda Buryatia

Talk:Ust-Orda Buryatia , thx for the NO landscape info. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied there.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). You put a great effort into it, it was me who mixed up everything. Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lang-ru

Any reason why?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The guy who added ja.wiki link inserted an extra space, which resulted in the template disruption. I tried to fix it in various ways, then reverted to the previous version. It appears like the problem was in Template:LangWithName, which is part of Template:Lang-ru. After fixing the glitch, I reverted my edits on Lang-ru. --Ghirla | talk 16:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] landscape→district

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#.22Landscape.22 - I have doubts. To avoid unecessary move I voted keep at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Landscapes_of_Norway_to_Category:Districts_of_Norway I would like to discuss this a little more. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wouldn't know. The only reason I had it on my watchlist was because an article-quality (or, rather, a decent stub-quality) passage was used as a category description. I asked a question in that regards and forgot all about it, until someone suggested to rename the whole cat altogether, at which point I thought it may be of interest to you. "Landscapes" still sounds wrong, but since I am no expert on that, I'll step aside.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] калининград ето круто

Please explain me your revert hedgehog ? If you dare:) because i can make as many edits untill u'll give me proof that, what i'm saying is not true. Otherwise you're nothing more than scared of your nation past. Put your arguments before revert. I can even cite you a statement of kaliningrad mayor, in a kaliningrad newspaper, in which he aggrees that such krimes were commited--Lokyz 03:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lokyz! Thanks for contacting me, although I am not quite sure what you mean by "if I dare". Of course, I do; after all, you asked me to explain my edit :)
The reason I reverted your edit without providing a comment was because I thought the revert to be quite self-explanatory and obvious (as well as because the rollback tool does not provide means for adding a comment). However, since I see that you do not yet have much experience around here, I understand that an explanation is in order.
The problem with the passage you added is that its language is very far from neutral (NPOV). Neutrality is one of the fundamental principles of this encyclopedia, and controversial articles/information are always a target of additional scrutiny. While there is nothing wrong with describing a valid point of view, it should never be done in an accusational tone and presented as the only right position. Furthermore, it should always be verifiable and documented. Your edit, as it stood, did not comply with any of these three policies.
You mentioned that you are able to provide sources for the claims made in the passage you added. You will need to cite them if you want the passage kept. Keep in mind, though, that we are looking for authoritative and credible sources, preferrably from a work that's on the subject and published by a reputable publisher. A statement by Kaliningrad mayor published in a newspaper may be a good additional source, but if it's the only one, then, I'm afraid, it is not going to be sufficient. Our goal is to create a complete and reliable encyclopedia, but that does not mean we have to add "facts" from every tabloid on the planet (and please note that by saying this I am not implying that your information is from a tabloid or otherwise low-quality—this is just an example).
I hope I provided sufficient explanation for my revert. To recap: if you want to add the passage back, please re-word it to sound more neutral, and provide and cite academic sources. Additionally, note that no original research can be accepted as proof (i.e., even if you yourself interview the civilians who suffered from Soviet repressions, the facts from such an interview will not be accepted here unless they are published in an academic work). Assuming good faith also never hurts :)
In any case, please feel free to contact me if you have further questions, or need additional explanations/clarifications.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, i will look for sources and try to rewrite the arguments. I do agree that in previous edition it might sound biased. And i'm sorry for my not very polite tone.--Lokyz 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I was sure your intentions were good. See you around.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republics

As admin can you Autonomous Republics -> Autonomous republic. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC) changed my mind Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

nice row of articles Kuban Soviet Republic ... merged into ... but what happened to North Caucasian Soviet Republic? maybe you can extend the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The republic was taken by the White Army, so the VTsIK abolished it in 1918. I amended the article to that effect.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

inconsistent: Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic but Russian SFSR.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

According to my sources, that's what the name of the republic was.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
? I was refering to long form and abrevv form of SFSR. I will address this at the Soviet Union project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I misunderstood the question. The discrepancy is probably due to the "common English use" issues, but I'm not certain.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I created Adygeya Autonomous oblast I think I have to uppercase the "o". AOs are mentioned at Republics of the Soviet Union, but should probably not be there. To find consistent naming I suggest starting Category:Subdivisions of the Soviet Union - and then step by step put the articles there, resp. in subcats. If there are in the cats we see how they are named now and can fix inconsistencies. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

well the cat allready exists. :-) I will populate. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if creating a bunch of subsubsubstubs is such a great idea. Unless you are going to expand them real soon, I'm afraid people will start merging, deleting, and redirecting them. Categorization is great, but only when there is something to categorize. As for the rest, I agree.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crosslinking to Wikipages in other languages

I thought you might be a good person to ask for help, Ezhiki. I want to link from my own user page to pages in the Russian and German Wikipedias, but I haven't been able to find a document that tells me specifically how to do this. I suppose one could format such links as external links, but surely there's a better way. I'd appreciate any insights you could provide. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 01:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Skazka, just link like this Australia on Russian Wiki. abakharev 01:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I also provided detailed instructions on CKA3KA's talk page.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you! It worked like a charm, of course. Check out my userpage, if you like. The results are in the first paragraph. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-paste move

as admin can you help to undo the 2005-06-11 copy paste move by User:Cedar-Guardian

IMO the dab should be at South Lebanon and the gov at SLG. Compare Category:Governorates_of_Lebanon thx Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the move was completed so long ago and there've been edits to the main article since then, I was unable to preserve the dab history separately at the dab article's space. The original dab history is now the part of the main article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolay Sokolov

It was only because there was the possibilty not so much of ambiguïty as some confusion, that I chose the longer name (confusion with Nikolai Sokoloff, which I wanted to avoid as much as possible- Nikolay Sokolov could, so far as one knew in passing, just be an alternative transliteration of the conductor's name. As a check of a library catalog, say, shows, just in music but generally too there are too many authors with that general name ;) ). Even though a dab line- I need to add one to the Sokolov article just as there's now one on the Sokoloff- helps with that it's true... Best Schissel-nonLop! 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know about the other guy, but I think including an alt use line should solve that problem. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nevsky Prospect

Hi, Ezhiki. Your comments are most welcome. --Ghirla | talk 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ghirlandajo! May I ask you about your reasoning for choosing the "c"-version in the first place? Is the name of the Gogol's story the only reason, or is there more to it than that? While I myself think that the name should be either transliterated (with a "k") or translated, I'd like to hear from you first in case I'm missing something big picture-wise.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand much about transliteration, but rendering Russian "к" as Latin "k" rather than "c" just because they look similar is somewhat puerile imho. The spelling "prospect" should be familiar to English eyes, no need to introduce new outlandish spellings. But that's just me. --Ghirla | talk 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, just like Thomas noted, the problem is that there is no single transliteration system that would use letter "c" to transliterate Russian "к", but what's more important is that while the English word "prospect" has many meanings, "avenue" is not one of them, which makes the title quite misleading. I'd say if you don't like how "prospekt" looks, then use either "Neva Avenue" or "Nevsky Avenue". I will double-check, but I don't think we have a policy/guidelines regarding street names, so you have some flexibility there.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Ezhiki on this. —Nightstallion (?) 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say if you don't like how "prospekt" looks, then use either "Neva Avenue" or "Nevsky Avenue".
So I do. Move the article to "prospekt" if you feel that "prospect" may be misleading.--Ghirla | talk 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. I had to merge histories, too.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ezhiki. Thanks for helping out. Finally the article has the proper heading. Thomas Blomberg 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In this example, Nevsky Prospekt is probably established English usage; but that would not apply to less well-known streets. Septentrionalis 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The

Unfortunately, I have difficulty summarizing what I would use, as a native speaker of English. The is almost mandatory with "JAO"; but that is because it is not a geographical name, really, but defined by the two adjectives.

It depends partly on the form of the name. I would generally use "Primorsk District"; but "the Primorsk", because there's only one Primorsk, but many districts. "Primorsky Krai" is a harder problem; there may be no English convention, because it's not an English name. (Is there consensus on Krai/Oblast instead of "Province"? WP:UE would solve so many problems!)

It also depends partly on context. Use of The in article names is to be avoided (unless it's part of the name, like The Magic Flute.

I'm not sure this will help. Can you give a few examples? Septentrionalis 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It has generally been accepted to use "krai" and "oblast" instead of "territory" and "province". This is partly because there are no established English translations of both words ("territory" and "province" are by far the most commonly used equivalents, but they are not by any means standard), and partly because in reverse translation "territory" corresponds to Russian "территория" (territoriya), and "province"—to Russian "провинция" (provintsiya), which are separate words on their own, both of which have subsets of meanings competely unrelated to the meanings of the words "krai" and "oblast". Provintsiyas also used to be administrative subdivisions of Russia in the past, which certainly does not help matters as far as translation of modern terms is concerned.
As for the examples, here are some:
An interesting part is that when "oblast" is replaced with "province" (and "krai"—with "territory"), the definite article sounds a lot more natural: the Tula Province, the Stavropol Territory, but it still probably is incorrect (cmp. with the Wisconsin State, which sounds plain wrong unless it's a part of a construct such as the Wisconsin State Lottery).
I don't know if these examples are going to help, but if you could look into this, I'd certainly much appreciate it. My English isn't too shabby, but little things like this are what separates native and non-native speakers, and articles have long been a personal weakness of my own. I am somewhat afraid, however, that this may require help of a professional English teacher/educator. Reference materials certainly have not been of much help so far.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The Wisconsin State is not English; The State of Wisconsin is mandatory; in the Wisconsin State Lottery, Wisconsin State is functioning as an adjective, and the modifies Lottery. Using that last phrase would be an error of fact if Wisconsin had more than one lottery.
Unfortunately, while English usage feels fairly clear to me on a case-to-case basis, it is not the result of conscious rules. After thought, and discussion with an English major, I would suggest the following guidelines:
  • For X Krai/Oblast/Province
    • If X is a geographical name, omit use the: in Tambov province.
      • (The is not absolutely impossible here, but it is strongly archaizing.)
    • If X is an English adjective, use the: in the Russian Federation
    • Primorsky Krai depends on whether Primorsky is or is not heard as an adjective: probably omit.
  • For X, by itself, generally omit the: in Russia, in Tambov.
    • But there are idiomatic exceptions; in the Crimea, in the Primorsk, (before 1991) in the Ukraine. These are all large regions, and they are primarily pieces of geography rather than nations (presumably why the Ukrainians have been revising usage.)
  • Always use the before rivers and mountain ranges: the Volga, the Urals, the Caucasus. Individual mountains omit the: on Everest, or on Mount Everest.
  • Use the with peoples viewed collectively; omit before names of peoples used as individuals. The Russians say X means all Russians ; Russians say X probably means some Russians; but this depends on the verb.
  • For Russian federal subjects, use the if and only if you would write the subjects if Russian federal were edited out.
  • Notwithstanding all of the above, don't use the to begin article names.
For reference, I would try Otto Jespersen's English Grammar.
Good luck. Septentrionalis 03:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. While I knew most of the points, it was a good refresher.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AndriyK RfAr closed

The AndriyK RfAr has been closed. Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish/Karelian

Are you sure that Finnish is not official in Karelia? The republic's site is in Finnish and the very status of "republic" indicates that the титульная нация has special privileges. Kazak 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] Quite sure. Karelian/Finnish are in common use in the republic, but they do not have official status. Karelian is being promoted on the official level, and there is a strong push towards making it co-official with Russian, but so far that has not yet been accomplished. I commented to that effect on the article's talk, citing article 11.1 of the republic's Constitution, which should answer most of your other questions if you have any. Thanks for keeping eye on this.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found this link on the subject. Perhaps we should work it into the Karelia article? Kazak 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's a good one. Anons keep adding Finnish/Karelian as official to the article on the Republic of Karelia; this information should stop that.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. I cleaned up the article (removing all the references to Finnish as official) and added a footnote to the "official language" box with a link to the Karelian government site. It's really helpful that they translate their articles into English. Kazak 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it's much appreciated. Hopefully this will solve the problem of anon edits once and for all.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain ranges of Russia

Hello. Maybe you will be interested in voting for category renaming here. - Darwinek 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary moves

Concerning your latest move of Pavlovsk to Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg, I urge you to discuss such moves beforehand on the article's talk page or with an editor who wrote the page. I don't think that obscure red-linked Pavlovsk you found near Voronezh may be compared in eminence to the imperial residence. 99% searching for the page have the palace in mind, you made them click twice to find the page they need. We don't have Saint Petersburg as a dab page linking to Saint Petersburg (Russia) and Saint Petersburg (USA), do we? Also, the new name is hardly correct: Pavlovsk is situated dozens miles from St Petersburg. Though administratively a part of St Petersburg, it is not its immediate neighbourhood geographically, as your title seems to imply. A solution: move Pavlovsk back to its legitimate name and link another Pavlovsk through {otheruses} template. --Ghirla | talk 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what? This exact same thing occured to me when I was about done with dab bypasses (finding no single reference to another Pavlovsk kind of rings some warning bells :)). While I would insist that "Pavlovsk, Saint Petersburg" is correct (were it to be left at that name), because the town is under jurisdiction of St. Petersburg, and jurisdiction is what's used for dabs, it's, of course, a moot point because I'll be moving it back now. A lesson for me is from now on to review all dab page backlinks to see their composition.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Ghirla | talk 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. In my defense I can additionaly point out that the other Pavlovsk is almost twice as populous :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was good to move it. The comparison with Saint Petersburg is not appropriate because the difference in importance is much bigger and Saint Petersburg (Russia) is probably well known, while Pavlovsk is not to that extent. And at least after the bypass work it is now clear that the other refs don't go to Voronezh. Better dab now and fix redirects than to do it later. Having Pavlovsk as dab helps to avoid wrong links, i.e. in an article where Voronezh is meant to link to Pavlovsk. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, normally I would agree, but in this case Ghirla is right—this particular Pavlovsk is far more notable (just read the article and check the backlinks—there isn't a single one leading to other Pavlovsk, which itself is a red link), although, of course, not as well known to laymen like you and me as St. Pete. Besides, with only two Pavlovsks in Russia, the potential for confusion isn't all that high. Otheruses template takes care of this case pretty well.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
as you may see from the dab page there are at least three, not counted a district. I haven't heard of any of the Pavlovsk's before. Whether this particular P. is far more notable (what's that?) is IMO not important. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually there are four—there is another one in Sakha, but the ones in Sakha and Altai Krai are villages (although Altai's Pavlovsk is comparable in population with St. Petersburg's). There are also countless minor settlements with variations of the name (such as "Pavlovskoye", "Pavlovsky", "Novopavlovsky", etc.). All four should be included in Wikipedia as geographic locations (which are not subject to notability requirements, only to verifiability), but since this is an encyclopedia first (and a list of geographic locations probably not even second), anything that's more notable than other takes precedence. If you google for "Pavlovsk", the first several pages will return only references to the Saint Petersburg's town—making it quite more notable than other three locations combined. Just because many people have not heard of it before does not make it any less notable. Returning to the St. Petersburg example, if some educationally challenged people (mostly U.S. Midwestern and Southern Republicans, I'd suppose :)) only know of Saint Petersburg in Florida, it does not make it right to put it as a main article or even to turn Saint Petersburg into a dab page (even though to those people Florida's St. Petersburg is more notable than the Russian one). Putting more notable subjects where they can be most efficiently found makes a better encyclopedia. Besides, people wanting to find other Pavlovsks now have all the means to do so.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
for all subjects there will allways be one the number one in google. And for lots maybe even the first three may refer to one only. I don't think it is good for the accuracy of WP to put one meaning in the undisambiguated place then. The somewhere above mentioned reasons that there are currently almost no links to other Pavlovsk is not really compelling to me. Then nearly all Africa places would go second and US articles first. Well, since the USians name things the same very often, they produce the dab-pages themselfs. ... As it could be with Pavlovsk. Can you add the other Pavlovsks? "y" and "oye" and "Novo" should be mentioned too. Esp. "y" is of not much say in en:WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's currently a practice in Wikipedia to put the most notable place at the main title when it's overwhemingly more notable, and as an admin I must conform with the existing practices and policies even if I don't like or agree with them. Overwhemingly is, however, the key word (so just being #1 in google doesn't cut it): Kirov, for example, is a dab page because both the man and the city are equally likely to be looked up by readers, and Saint Petersburg is not because there are so many more references to the Russian city than to the American one. With Pavlovsk, the chance that a location other than that near St. Petersburg is going to be looked up is pretty slim, and slim chances are what {otheruses} template usually covers. If there were a Russian village called Berlin, would you agree to make Berlin a dab page, or would you rather have {otheruses} at the top providing a link to a separate dab page? To take the example to the extreme, what if it were a defunct Russian village?
As for the variations of the name, according to the MoS, they should go to their separate dab pages (I can't provide a link to that guideline off the top of my head, but I can look it up if you want). It's probably OK to add a "See also" section to Pavlovsk with the links to other dab pages (e.g., "see also Pavlovsky, Pavlovskoye, etc.), but I'd have to check to be completely sure. With so many disambig nazis fighting for the purity of the disambiguation procedures one had better learn the MoS by heart (which I, to my shame, have not done yet) :) I'll probably get to them damn variations eventually, but I don't want to interrupt my work flow now just to hunt them all down (which is not difficult, but quite tedious and distracting). I was planning to nail all duplicate districts (done), towns (done), urban settlements (started), and only then villages (maybe). There are literally dozens if not hundreds of Pavlovsk[*]s, Sovetsk[*]s, Leninosomethings, and Krasnowhateversks in Russia, so if I complain about anything, lack of things to do is not it :) Planning is, however, vital.
So, the bottom line is to keep Pavlovsk where it is until guidelines/policies covering this practice are amended. As much as I don't like some of the policies, however, I have no desire to waste my time on changing them as long as they make at least some sense.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • @Berlin - that's (for me) the same as with Saint Petersburg. You may read the above statements of me regarding Saint Petersburg.
  • the de, eo, ru WP's don't agree with your views and have added "(Saint Petersburg)"
  • the io, fr have pure Pavlosvk articles but actually refer to Pavlovsk Palace so I moved the interwikis where they belong to.

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Berlin was a bad example. What about same scenario, different city? Erfurt, for example?
As for your second remark: other language editions of Wikipedia are governed by different procedures and guidelines. While the English Wikipedia tends to put the most common use at the main title, others may not do the same.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
where are the other Erfurts? Maybe the other do tend to do the same, but people agree that the town near Petersburg is not that "notable". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There are no other Erfurts. This is a hypothetical, a "what if" question. Rephrasing the question, should there be or should there not be a dab page when a comparatively notable location has far less notable counterparts elsewhere in the world? As for the (non-)notability of the St. Petersburg's Pavlovsk, I dare you to ask Ghirla :) He'll explain it better than I would ever be able to.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 06:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who knows Erfurt. If there would be a village Erfurt in Malaysia, I would probably tend to dab. But I would certainly tend to dab if there are 6 or even more other places called Erfurt too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Hello

You're the only russian user I know on Wikipedia, so I'll ask you. The russian babel box says:

Русский язык для данного участника является родным.

Wouldn't it be a better to make участник the subject instead of Русский язык?

Something like:

Этот участник может поговорить по-руский на уровне ролнова языка
Этот участник владеет русским языком как родным corr. by Ezhiki

(There may be spelling or grammar errors there, but I think you get my gist). — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! First of all, I need to point out that the two sentences you provided convey different meanings—the first states that Russian is user's native language (=ru-N), and the second implies that while Russian may or may not be user's native language, people would not notice the difference anyway (=ru-4 or, although not as likely =ru-N). Second, the original sentence simply cannot be written in active voice and retain its meaning. There is just no proper active voice Russian equivalent to the English phrase "This user is a native speaker of Russian". Third, the verb "говорить" refers to user's ability to speak the language, which is quite irrelevant for Wikipedia, where reading and writing skills are more important. I replaced you version with another one (correcting the grammatical and spelling errors along the way), but the corrected sentence still sounds a little unnatural (even though that's the version Russian WP uses).
Hope this helps. May I ask you what do you need this for?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I wouldn't know what sounds unnatural, having lived in the US since I was 3 :\. Thanks for replying. I don't really need it for anything, I was just wondering because all my other babel boxes seem to have been written in the active voice. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Could you please delete the article BoyZone? I was unaware if there was an article on Wikipedia about this band but later discovered the article Boyzone. This was my mistake. Thank you for your time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else already turned it into a redirect, which is actually a better solution than deletion. Let me know if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISO 9

...finally I found what I read long time ago and wanted to tell you once we talked about tranliteration (ref: your talk with nixer). is this of any help? could it be used? maybe write your thoughts about it at the corresponding project page and point me there. best regards ... and honestly: I had no plans to change the current subnational entity scheme for RU! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

i have the WP-project cyrillic page on my watchlist now. So I will see what happens via this page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tobias. Yes, of course I am aware of ISO 9. In fact, it's on my to-do list for the Romanization of Russian article. ISO 9 has its share of benefits and deficiencies—it's too long to list them all here. The bottom line is that every other system has similar sets; some overlapping and some not. Keep your eye on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)—I was planning to add an analysis of current WP Russian translit practices there; hopefully soon enough.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon

Hi Ezhiki!! Thanks for the Hello, and great to hear from a fellow Lunar citizen. I couldn't beieve it when i saw the category. I knew that i had to put it up on my page. And, i agree, it will be good when the category starts to fill up ;) The Halo

[edit] Help request

Ezik please help me, I'm new here.

- Thank you for reading it, Kniaz.

P.S. I don't know how to change word to Russian, Spasibo towarish.

Hi there! I couldn't quite figure out what you needed help with. Could you, please, clarify? Just leave another message here (Russian's fine, if it works better for you). Take care!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization of Belarusian

I just created this new article. Would you please have a look over it for mistakes? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-12 22:56 Z

Michael, as I do not know Belorusian, I can only provide very limited feedback. Overall, the article looks good to me, except for two minor things:
  • In the "Notes" section, item 4, line 1, Cyrillic letters е, ё, й, ю, я are listed against corresponding Latin digraphs je, ji, jo, ju, ja. The order seems to be incorrect.
  • The last line of item 4 in the "Notes" section indicates that the soft sign modifies the preceding consonant, yet letter "l" seems to be unmodified in the list that follows.
Also, do you think adding an example table for each system (as I did for most of the systems in the Romanization of Russian) would benefit this article (and perhaps one on Romanization of Ukrainian as well)? That way readers would have some examples to go with each rule, which is helpful, but I realize that these tables will bloat the article in size quite a bit. If need be, I can help with BGN/PCGN—I have a copy of original BGN's "Romanization Systems and Roman-Script Spelling Conventions" publication that summarizes transliteration of 29 languages (including Belorusian, Russian, and Ukrainian), but I'll need help with the actual examples.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your eyes; I'll fix those details. As in Polish, I think, the regular l in the Łacinka alphabet is already softened, and the crossed ł is hard—I'll see if I can clarify that.
Personally, I'd rather build up the articles' text with information about the systems' histories and usage, and keep the reference tables quite minimal (although there isn't much to say in some of these articles). The very detailed tables with examples seem to me to be more appropriate for a tutorial. On the other hand, there wouldn't be anything wrong with having more detailed tables under a separate title, the way many "List of ..." articles stand on their own.
Since I don't know Belarusian either, I was inspired to make the little examples table at Romanization of Belarusian#Examples, and I think it works as a concise illustration of the differences between systems. (I still need to find a polite Belarusian word that contains х and й to make it a better overview)
By the way, also have a look at scientific transliteration, in case you haven't already seen it. Maybe it's time to start a general article about BGN/PCGN romanization. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 22:22 Z
That's a pretty good idea, about putting romanization systems' overviews (with examples) into their separate articles! I wonder why I didn't think of such an easy solution in the past—it looks so obvious now. The overview articles will, of course, be pretty damn big with all those examples, but I don't think they can be made smaller without sacrificing content, so we'll have to eat it. I'll try to start one on BGN/PCGN some time—I think I can produce a pretty decent article by summarizing the BGN's book intro, but examples, of course, will have to be added by native speakers. The Russian example tables, I think, should stay where they are until the overview article is ready.
I glanced over the scientific transliteration article, but I haven't thouroughly read it yet. Will scrutinize it soon. And hey, good luck with a decent х-word example :) I had exact same problem with the Russian "ъё" combination, which some anon has just corrected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm envisioning a main article BGN/PCGN romanization, with an overview table like the one in scientific transliteration, and linking to a list of more detailed tables by language:
Or maybe supporting articles entitled "Table of ..." would make a fine counterpart to the many existing "List ofs":
  • Table of BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian
  • etc.
And of course, for example, Romanization of Belarusian would link to
This keeps all the main articles neat and tidy, but makes it easy to find the more detailed reference from the direction of a language or of a system. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 23:55 Z
Sounds good. Let's do it that way.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm: 29 languages, you say? Is there an obvious way to subdivide them, say Slavic Cyrillic, Asian Cyrillic, other writing systems? —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 00:01 Z

Well, yes and no. The languages are Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani (Cyr), Bulgarian, Burmese, Belorusian, Chinese, Georgian, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese (Kana), Kazakh (Cyr), Khmer, Kyrgyz (Cyr), Korean, Lao, Macedonian, Maldivian, Mongolian (Cyr), Nepali, Pashto, Persian, Russian, Serbocroatian (Cyr), Thai, Turkmen, Ukrainian, and Uzbek. Cyrillic ones are fairly easy to organize, but some of the rest stand alone. Besides, if we adopt the linking scheme you suggested above, grouping may not be necessary.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It would still be nice to have a summary table (tables) in the main article BGN/PCGN romanization. On the other hand, it would become a very table-heavy article with all writing systems represented, so maybe it's best to keep all the tables separate from this one.
I count six Slavic Cyrillic and six other Cyrillic languages in the list (including Turkmen and Uzbek, right?). This will fit into two tables with no problems, and possibly into a single one. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 16:48 Z
It would be nice, but I don't think it's practical. With tables for all 29 languages, the article will be enormous. For Arabic alone, romanization rules overview spans five book pages, and that's without any examples. I think moving these tables to BGN/PCGN romanization of InsertLangNameHere would make more sense, and examples can be later added relatively painlessly.
Turkmen and Uzbek do use Cyrillic, you are correct. These can probably fit into the overview article, but I would split them out for consistency anyway, especially since languages like Arabic and Amharic will need to be separate. In any case, we can try both approaches and see what works the best.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization of Russian

I added a summary table to Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table. It still has gaps for the old letters, and should be checked for errors. The more detailed tables for each system could be moved to their own articles. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 15:21 Z

I'll take a look at it at home. I can't see most of the archaic and some other letters in IE (which is what I'm stuck with for the rest of today). Feel free to move the tables to their own articles when those articles are written.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just added class=Unicode to the table, which may help with the display, but probably not the editing. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 16:26 Z
Thanks, that helps. The table is now readable.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian issues

Thanks for the invite, I am only beginning to understand the complexities of this. For the moment, as I said before, I am only changing the transliterations if there is an official Russian government (or regional for governors) website that transliterates differently. So we have identical Cyrillic becoming Alexey's & Alexei's, or Alexandr's, Alexander's, and Aleksandr's. I just wanted to put some meat on these politician stubs. Carlossuarez46 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I've just left another comment you might be interested in.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?!

How did a vote of over 75% not succeed???? was it the possibility of sockpuppets? I hope so, because that's ridiculous!Gator (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a bureaucrat's decision (his first, if I am not mistaken). Even with sockpuppetry discounted, the margin was too tight and could be interpreted either way. You can read all about it here and here.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Greetings,

You have requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. The chair of the committee has asked if I'd take the case. This would be my first case since joining the Mediation Committee, however I have been an editor for over a year and an administrator for about seven months. I have no knowledge or opinion of this matter, and shall be fair to both sides. Please respond here to let me know if I am acceptable as a mediator. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this case, Will. I accept you as a mediator.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Good. Could you please send me an email, using the link from my user page? In the email I'd like you to briefly outline your issues. Then I'd like you to briefly outline the issues of the other party, describing them as you believe the other party sees them. Lastly, please briefly decribe the outcome that we should work towards. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nostalgy Primorye

Привет земляк, мне тут прислали сегодня ссылку "Ты из приморья, если..." я по настальгировал значительно. теперь хочется поделиться... http://gorgaz.livejournal.com/1614.html Извини если воспримешь как спам, но я к этому ЖЖ дневнику отношения не имею... --Morpheios Melas 14:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Какой нафиг спам??! Спасибо! Made my day! Эх, сейчас бы Милкиса в жабры залить :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
На за что... У меня кстати вопрос по поводу русской Вики, статья Вдладивосток, банкнота: а разве "ослинные уши" не вхоядт в состав владивостока? Если уж острова Русский, Попова и Рейнеке и полуостров Песчаный входят... --Morpheios Melas 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Replied at ru:Обсуждение участника:Morpheios Melas#Уши.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yuri Dolgoruki

The page was moved three times over the previous days. Please comment whether the current name is a standard transliteration. --Ghirla | talk 14:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Yuri_Dolgoruki#Article name.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sokil

Написал. Поправь, если что не так. Хотя, скорее всего пустая трата времени, собирать в английской вики малозначительные украинские села, для которых никогда и стабов не будет, но попутно сделал и для украинской. Там это нужнее. Еще нашел Community for summer vacationers в Ontario [3] и канадский трактор Sokil, но не уверен, что есть смысл это добавлять. --Yakudza 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо, посмотрю. Насчёт деревень ты прав. В отдалённой перспективе они не помешают, но специально ради них корячиться смысла мало. Я, во всяком случае, сам добавляю только райцентры, пгт (смт) и demoted пгт. Что касается sokil'a, то community for summer vacationers скорее всего не пойдёт (точно сказать не могу —сайт у меня не загрузился), а вот про трактор можно было бы написать.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Не написал, т.к. не понял sokil tractor, толи это фирма-перевозчик, толи марка трактора (трейлера) [4] --Yakudza
Sokil Express Lines — явно какая-то мелкая тракинговая компания в Канаде. Вся техника на фотографиях находится в их собственности; это явно не марка трейлера. В таком случае добавлять не нужно; non-notable. Спасибо за ссылку.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krasnaya Polyana

The resort hasn't been built yet, but it is part of Sochi's bid to host the 2014 Winter Olympics, and thus I believe it is at least as notable as any other ski resort. eae 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities and towns in Russia

Hello Ezhiki. I am just writing you to tell you that subcategories of Cat:Cities and towns in Russia should be nominated in WP:CFD for renaming. Wikipedia standard naming convention for cities, towns, villages or other human settlements is XX in YY, not of. - Darwinek 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! That's what I get for not reading the rules beforehand. No need to bother with CfD, though, I'll take care of them myself (there is still plenty of cities/towns to recategorize anyway). Thanks for bringing this to my attention before it was too late!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pavlovsk

Saying that Pavlovsk is "in" Leningrad oblast is like saying that Gibraltar is "in" Spain. While both of these may be true, Pavlovsk is not part of Leningrad oblast, and Gibraltar is not part of Spain. Backspace 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point is. Perhaps it would better to say that Pavlovsk is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast (as opposed to "in" it), because St. Petersburg itself is located on the territory of Leningrad Oblast and is its administrative center. The Gibraltar example is irrelevant because the administrative situation there is entirely different. As for Pavlovsk being under jurisdiction of St. Petersburg (not oblast), it was already mentioned before you made your edits. I don't see why it should be repeated twice in the same paragraph.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia article on Russia, which you yourself have edited, it is stated that Russia is divided into 88 federal subjects. They are all mutually exclusive of one another. Two of these subjects are Leningrad oblast and Saint Petersburg federal city. Although Saint Petersburg is obvious geographically inside Leningrad oblast (i.e., it is surrounded by it), the two are administratively separate, not of the same federal subject. If they were part of the same subject, I would gather, there would only be 87 federal subjects. That Saint Petersburg is the administrative center of Leningrad oblast is irrelevant to the topic; after all, there are many counties in the U.S. state of Virginia that are administered from "independent cities" that are geographically outside of the county. That is all that I meant, that something is either in (part of, not "surrounded by") one entity or the other. Backspace 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are not correct about the "mutually exclusive" part. The majority of the autonomous districts of Russia, for example, are administratively parts of other federal subjects, which nevetheless does not prevent them from being separate federal subjects on their own. Saint Petersburg and Moscow are quite a similar story. You are putting too much faith into Russians doing things logically—they hardly ever do :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not quite understanding. There is a List of federal subjects of Russia by population which lists the population by federal subject. Without mutual exclusivity, am I to assume that the total population of Russia would be more than or less than the total that I would obtain if I were to add up the individual entities? How did they carve up Russia to obtain these numbers. I would assume that each and every one of the individuals counted in "Saint Petersburg" would not appear in "Leningrad Oblast" also. It would not be logical to have any individual person counted in two (or more) different entities, it would seem to me. Backspace 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
That list (and the List of federal subjects of Russia by area) has long been on my to-do list, but I never got to sorting it out (changing the lists is easy, but changing every article which links to it is quite tedious). Both lists indeed count the nested autonomous districts twice (once as a part of the federal subject they are a part of, and once on their own—e.g., Krasnoyarsk Krai's area/population is given including the area/population of Taymyria and Evenkia, as well as Krasnoyarsk Krai proper, but both Taymyria and Evenkia are included separately as well). The area/population of Moscow Oblast and Leningrad Oblast, however, do not include those of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Such approach is traditional in Russian political geography and statistics. The reason is purely economic—budgets of nested regions depend on the budgets of the federal subjects they are subordinated to, so all statistical parameters are bundled together, but since such nested regions enjoy some degree of autonomy (unlike raions), there is a need to track their stats separately as well. Moscow and St. Petersburg always enjoyed a special status (both in modern Russia and in the USSR), and their budgets are quite independent from those of the oblasts they govern.
While this works fine and dandy in practice, I can see how awfully confusing and illogical it may seem to a person reading the general overview without being aware of these intricacies. Explaining all this in the article on Russian subdivisions is another thing on my to-do list, but I long since stopped making promises about when I am actually going to do something, because I found myself breaking such promises all too often.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You have finally enlightened me to the point of satisfaction regarding the Russian subjects. I shall adjust my areas and populations downward in the entities which contain other entities. I hope that this will result in agreement with figures for Russia as a whole. Thank you very much. I hope that this will end this lengthy discussion. I still, however, stand by my original contention that Pavlovsk is not in Leningrad oblast, my definition of "in" being "part of" and not "surrounded by". I will not re-edit that particular article, however, as I know that you would immediately revert it. Were I to find other articles (non-Russia-related, in order to be safe from your reversions) with a similar statement, I would have to do as I believe. Backspace 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You are quite wrong about me immediately reverting the change you want to make. I can quite accept an idea of being wrong every once in a while. Encyclopedic accuracy for me is way more important than a question of who was right and who was not. Please do not regard me as a hawk flying over the Russian geography-related articles jealously protecting them from intruders. I keep a close watch on them, true, but only to make sure that less informed editors do not make edits that may seem logical to them but are in fact contrary to the truth.
Returning to Pavlovsk—the differences in viewpoints there are so fine and under-defined, that it can be regarded as both being "in" Leningrad Oblast and being separate from it, depending on the aspect one is reviewing (administrative, economic, or geographical). It would perhaps be better to edit that particular sentence out of the article altogether and stick to purely geographic definitions of "where", not unlike it's done in the article on Ust-Izhora. The sentence about Pavlovsk being under the jurisdiction of St. Petersburg should, of course, stay.
If you are going to edit the article on area/population rankings of the federal subjects, please do not forget to update all the articles that link to it (infoboxes on most of federal subjects will have to be updated as the rankings are bound to shift).
Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any questions or need clarifications. I'm always glad to be of assistance. Thank you very much for your interest to this subject—due to its fairly low popularity it's not very often I get to enjoy a conversation about it with someone.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that my population/area figures were for the purpose of editing Wikipedia articles. The are solely for my own use. (One of my main interests is geography.) I will defer the editing of Wikipedia articles on Russia to you, now that I know that you have a lot more expertise than I do. Backspace 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a pity I wasn't able to nudge you into it :) You are always welcome to come back and join in on the fun.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Who knows? Maybe I just might give it a try. It's strange though, that the populations of the subjects as of the 2002 census are known down to the very last man/woman, but that I can't find any precise figure for Russia as a whole in the Russia article (it even says "2000 census" there; did they have two within two years?). If I were to do the math correctly, am I to assume that I would be the first person in history to know the exact population of Russia in the 2002 census? Well, I think that we'd better end this discussion soon, before we run out of room at the right side of this column. Backspace 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know about you, but I have a pretty big monitor :)) As for the numbers being exact to the last person, that is, of course, silliness. They are that accurate only because the census results were reported that way. Most end users would round them, but I don't think it is acceptable to do for them in an encyclopedia.
You are quite correct about the general Russia article—there was no census in 2000; only estimates are available. As a matter of fact, the 2002 Census is the first one conducted in modern Russia; the previous one was the All-Soviet Census of 1989, and the next one is planned for 2010. The article on Russia sees quite a bit of vandalism and well-intentioned but factually incorrect edits; I would guess the "2000 Census" is one that was not caught in time (I corrected that). The population figure given by the 2002 Census was 145,513,037. If you can read Russian, perepis2002.ru is the official website of the Census with all the results you may ever be interested in. Hope this helps. Feel free to start a new section if you have additional questions, because we deviated from discussing Pavlovsk quite a bit, and people with smaller monitors are probably already reading these last comments vertically :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did the math and I found a downloaded Excel file at your www.peripis2002.ru website which seems to confirm my numbers (for population, so far; I still have to confirm the areas). However, that number for the total is 145,166,731, and not the number that you gave me. I don't read any Russian aside from making out the sounds of the letters of the alphabet (names of places are fairly easy; the grammar you can have!!!). I'm fascinated by how much information is on this spreadsheet concerning the populations of any town you'd care to find, broken down by federal subject! You can confirm this by downloading the #4 item on the linked page. Backspace 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
That particular Excel spreadsheet is the one I am using to update population figures in Wikipedia, and yes, it's amazing how good of a job they did! As for the number discrepancies, the spreadsheet figure (145,166,731) includes only Russian permanent residents who were located on the territory of the Russian Federatin during the Census. The other number (145,513,037) also includes Russian citizens abroad (excluding yours truly and probably quite a few other people who did not bother to participate), as well as people who permanently reside outside of Russia, but at the time of the Census were located on its territory.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
According to that spreadsheet, here is a summary of what I found relative to those two Wikipedia lists as they currently exist. 1. The Siberian entities that contain other federal subjects do indeed also include their populations and areas in their totals; therefore, these populations/areas are doubled up when you total them. 2. Beyond that, and inconsistently, the populations of Moscow and Saint Petersburg are separated from their surrounding oblasts, but the areas of Moscow oblast and Leningrad oblast both include the areas of the cities inside ("surrounded by") them. The populations of Chechnya and Ingushetia are correctly (?) separated, but the area of Chechnya also includes that of Ingushetia. (It is stated that the areas of these subjects is undefined, but how they got exact populations for each without a definition is beyond me.) 3. The area for Volgograd oblast is flat-out wrong, and should be 113,900 km² instead of 114,100 km². Backspace 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. There is a note to that effect, but like I said before, the areas should really be listed separately.
  2. You are correct about Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Both the population and the area should be either included with or counted separately from those of the oblasts they govern. That will need correction. As for Chechnya and Ingushetia, there is nothing puzzling here. The border is indeed still undefined, but that refers to the exact border. It is impossible to calculate exact areas of both republics without a defined border, but counting population is fairly easy, because all of these two republics' settlements are under jurisdiction of either Chechnya or Ingushetia. If a person reports that s/he is living in a Chechen settlement, s/he is included into the Chechnya's population, if s/he is living in an Ingush settlement, then, correspondingly, s/he is included with Ingushetia's population.
  3. This is a very interesting discovery you made. All of the areas of the federal subjects came directly from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which reports the Volgograd Oblast's area to be 114,100 km². A quick search in modern sources gives the area of 113,900 km². The latter is most likely correct, although I can't tell you off the top of my head what happened to those 200 km². To say I am intrigued is an understatement. The only administrative change of that scale I am aware of is the transfer of Sokolsky District of Ivanovo Oblast to jurisdiction of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast in 1994 (this transfer, by the way, is also not accounted for in the area figures in Wikipedia).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would something that occurred in 1994 not be accounted for in the 2002 census? (Download #3 item figure on previously referenced page agrees with Wikipedia numbers.) Backspace 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean the population figures, I meant the areas. Sorry about the confusion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC) And I also forgot about the fact that there are area figures available on the Census site. The 1994 transfer is accounted for in #3. As for the Volgograd Oblast discrepancy, I couldn't find anything yet.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

Italicized Russian looks perfectly legible to me, so I guess I disagree with the consensus. Furthermore, people who do not know the cyrillic alphabet very well can hope to gain little or nothing from whole words written in it. Lastly, italicizing foreign-language words in similar templates seems to be the norm, and I'm not sure that the dubious value of making cyrillic words minutely more legible for the benefit of people whose understanding of a word is hampered by much more than italics, is worth deviating from that norm. Example: Vyborg has its name listed in four languages, the other three of which are italicized. Does not look good.

Of course it would look legible to you—you are a native speaker (or so I assume). I have no problem reading it myself, even if one writes it out as a captcha :) There were, however, several complaints from users for whom Russian was not native, and who could read Cyrillic in general, but to whom italicized Cyrillic letters were confusing. To accomodate these users, Russian was de-italicized permanently per community consensus. If you wish to disagree with the consensus (which is one of your rights as a Wikipedian), you'll have to initiate a discussion and see if the consensus changed (a straw poll at Template talk:lang-ru will probably suffice); simply saying "I don't like it and that's that" just won't cut it.
I am all for consistency myself, but this is one of the cases where consistency takes a back seat to end-user convenience. Also, please do not remove the noinclude sections of the templates—they are there for other editors' reference.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Russian cities/towns infoboxes

Привет, не за что. Я на самом деле не понял, к чему некоторые поля относятся, например, nickname - это имя жителей или прозвище города. Надо будет проверить.

Ответы по пунктам.

  • Высоты - откуда придётся (Н-ск - по аэропортам). Знаю, что так нельзя. :)
  • ну, можно поискать данные обл- и крайстатов. Либо всё откатить на 2002, но 2 строку там не получится добавить - он же стандартный.
  • про часовой пояс вопроса не понял. Его в шаблоне можно написать по имени.
  • дык я везде поставил ссылки на муниципалитеты.
  • Вот с этим я не знаю, что делать. У меня тот же вопрос. :) Шаблон достаточно беден. Я могу расширить шаблон, уже в русской Вике сделал шаблон аэропорта. А что аборигены (то есть англоязычные) говорят на этот счёт? Ъыь 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that you were using the standard template. I guess it would be the best to develop a whole new one ({RussianCityTown} or something of the sort), and expand it with the fields we need. I don't think anybody would object to that, as long as we keep that template to Russian locations. That should take care of most of the points I raised. Such a template is actually on my to-do list, but only after the Russian federal subjects WikiProject is completed, and that one is not going anywhere at this time. Still, let me know if you need help; I'll be around.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

А, вспомнил, высоты посмотрю по SRTM (~Shuttle Radar Topography Mission). Ъыь 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That'll (probably) work, but it needs to eventually be mentioned in the References section.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elena Produnova

I just spotted this stub, and also noticed an already existing link to Yelena Produnova. Now I'm undecided whether to create a redirect, or move the stub according to naming conventions. What's your opinion? Cheers, --Nikai 13:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In such cases I usually use the spelling variation the person him/herself wants to be known under (but that is not an explicit Wikipedia policy/guideline). If that is hard to verify, then regular translit guidelines (i.e. WP:RUS) kick in. If I found this myself, I would most likely move her to Yelena Produnova, especially since the intro gives both variants. Russian people's names are currently a grey area in the rules.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krasny Bor

In connection with the new article Battle of Krasny Bor I noticed that Krasny Bor mentioned in the article cannot be the one in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast. I also doubt that Savicheva was buried that far from Leningrad. As you are an expert in Russian geography and disambigs, I believe you could investigate this issue. Thanks for your time, Ghirla -трёп- 17:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, of course, that Battle of Krasny Bor refers to a different settlement (namely to an urban settlement of the same name in Leningrad Oblast). There are also at least four other villages of that name elsewhere in Russia (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast included). I will create the dab page.
As for Savicheva, looks like she was indeed buried in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast [5].—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the dab. I knew something was up but I didn't have the slightest idea where to begin to look for the correct Krasny Bor. Albrecht 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Komsomolskaya Square

I would appreciate your comments. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied there.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2 - what happened

I think what happened is the page you had edited Height 611 UFO Incident was vandalized and caught by Tawkerbot2, for reasons still unknown to me (that I'm working on) it's grabbing the wrong editor for the vandal notice, its a fairly rare bug, I'm trying to determine if its a bot bug or if Wikipedia is giving the bot bogus info, its just weird but I'm working on it. Sorry about that -- 20:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities in Soviet Union

Hi Ezhiki. I am writing a college essay about Soviet Union. Can you tell me names of a few cities or towns like Mednogorsk, built during the Stalin's rule? Thank you. - Darwinek 10:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few, actually. The ones I can think right away are Komsomolsk in Ivanovo Oblast (note it is different from Komsomolsk-on-Amur, which is in Amur Oblast), Magnitogorsk, Boksitogorsk, Novokuznetsk, and Krasnouralsk.
Towns like Asbest, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Pervouralsk were founded a lot earlier, but they became major industrial centers (and, as a result, were granted town status) in the 1930s.
Let me know if this is not enough; I'll look up more for you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Suburbs of Saint Petersburg

Fiss started this duplicative category today. Should it be posted for deletion? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll take care of it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smackbot request

Hi, Rich. Could you, please, exclude the "xxxx in Fooian television" series (such as 1930 in television) from the Smackbot's delink list? These series is one of the few places where linking months makes sense (due to the way tables are laid out). I reverted the changes made so far. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Consider it done. Any other requests, or if this crops up again, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 13:54 23 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Mediation update

To be fair if you really want to continue it then by all means do, but I will agree to revert the -IYE to -YE for -ЫЕ, whilst keeping all of my other edits (-YI,-IY, I for Й, ye for E only in start of words. Also I just noticed how you edited Lyublinskaya Line, do explain to me why Maryino when there is no Й in Марьино? Also why Dostoyevskaya, when the article is titled Fyodor Dostoevsky. Why not then Kiyevskaya? (Sorry for being a pain in arse, but then you know the feeling of constantly pressuring someone about a logical correction, and WP policy does say use the most common words, I do dare you to google the latter - Kiyev) :) [37,800 google hits—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis)] [vs 23 100 000 for Kiev Kuban Cossack] On the positive side, I have compleately recategorised the wikicommons on Moscow Metro (link from the Metro page). I do need as many high-quality images that can be found. Would it be too much to ask you to snap a few? Particulary of the newer addtions Delovoi Tsentr, second exit of Mayakovskaya, Vykhino after reconstruction... Also all of the Metro templates now have actual links from the station bullets. --Kuban Cossack 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to proceed with the mediation. The reason for it, however, is not to establish whose transliteration system is right or better, it is to upheld existing rules until such time as they are amended. If current rules mandated using "q" for a soft sign, that's what I would be enforcing now. If that approach of mine seems a bit excessively bureaucratic to you, I am sorry, but that's how I understand my admin duties. With all that in mind, I'm more than open to listening to your or anyone else's suggestions at WP:CYR. Now, as for your questions:
  • WP:RUS currently requires using "y" for a soft sign followed by a non-iotated vowel (it is conventional);
    • on a ratio of 1:2 vs Ilich, I would not say so. Besides this where the apostrophe is really needed in translits.--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't remember what happened to "Ki(y)evskaya"; most likely I missed it when I was making changes. The reason why I insist that particular word and words similar to it are spelled differently ("Kiev" vs. "Kiyevskaya"; "Dostoevsky" vs. "Dostoyevskaya", etc.) is due to the fact that these are different entities the names of which are governed by different rules. Kiev is a city in Ukraine, which is very well-known to English speakers, and its name is governed by the "use common English" rule. Kiyevskaya, on the other hand, is a relatively obscure (compared to the city, anyway) metro station, for which "common English use" rule would not apply, and which, therefore, falls under transliteration provisions. The latter mandate the "ye" spelling for "е" following a vowel. Same goes for Dostoevsky (a well-known writer) and Dostoyevskaya (a little-known station). I am not asking you to agree with me, but I hope you at least see what my logic is. Perhaps the issue of derivative names can be covered separately at WP:CYR, but to me it would just mean complicating already over-complicated rules.
    • Do google Kievskaya Metro vs Kiyevskaya Metro and see for yourself: 60,400 vs 140 ... tsk tsk tsk.--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, I know. The thing is, it is my firm belief that it is better to have one translit system that covers all cases, even if it occasionally leads to 60,400:140 ratios, than to have review each word on case-by-case basis.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the metro pictures, I would be more than happy to help, but that would require me to take a trip to Moscow, which I was not planning to do any time soon :) I live in the U.S. Midwest, actually. I am sure, though, that if you ask around at the Russian portal, you'll find some Muscovites who would agree to help. You did a great job on the metro overall, though—pretty impressive!
    • No prob, thanks anyway!--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hope this answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything else.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Просьба

Пишу по-русски, так как дело касается нашего раздела. У нас тут несколько накалилась ситуация с админами, вандалами, троллями и прочими дрязгами (см. ru:ВП:ВУ). Ты человек опытный, и как я уже не раз убедился дотошный и справедливый. Не мог бы ты уделить немного внимания нашему мини-сообществу, мне кажется что тебе как человеку незамешанному в этих скандалах будет проще дать дельный совет (анализ). Не уверен, какой он может иметь статус, но для меня лично это будет очень важным мнением. Как знать, возможно что немного поучаствовав в нашем сообществе ты принесёшь бОльшую пользу Википедии, чем отредактировав 100 статей здесь. Ну а нет, так нет, ничего страшного. Заранее спасибо. MaxiMaxiMax 09:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Привет, Макс. Я честно прочитал ru:ВП:ВУ от и до и, причесав вставшие дыбом волосы, решил, что это удовольствие не для меня. Все эти кто-то на кого-то обиделся, "Андрюшка меня ка́кой обозвал", "а я сказал, а он сказал, а мы подумали" — не для меня это. Пока все разбираются в том, кто кого обидел, дело стоит. И очень уж много нелицеприятных моментов как со стороны юзеров, так и админов, да и культура дискуссий оставляет желать лучшего. Стало понятно, отчего в английской Википедии там и тут начали появляться сбежавшие русские википедисты. Поэтому, как бы я ни рад был помочь, в данном конкретном случае будет это как с пятого этажа мордой в грязь. Да и правила в русской Википедии другие — мой тутошний админский опыт, боюсь, там многого стоить не будет, а изучение мною ваших конкретных правил вряд ли чем-либо окупится. Хотелось бы дать какой-нибудь умный совет по улучшению ситуации, да только вот ничего кроме "будьте взаимно вежливы" в голову не идёт. Очень, очень грустно. Вот такой вот мой анализ :(—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Понятно, спасибо и на том. Мне тоже грустно. Несомненно, все стороны вели себя небезупречно и за несколько лет пока ru_wiki была маленькой и ненаселённой, админы (я в том числе) расслабились, точных правил не создавалось, всё делалось в расчёте на здравый смысл и добрую волю. Сейчас же явно появляются непримеримые противоборствующие группировки, упрямо стоящие на том то именно они владеют истиной, а их противников нужно изгнать или как минимум заставить замолчать. Мы сейчас довольно плотно работаем над правилами, которые как ограничат произвольные действия админов, так и дадут им неоспоримые права по наведению порядка, я надеюсь что это поможет. Несомненно, нужно также проводить работу по улучшению атмосферы в сообществе, повышению культуры дискуссий и доброго отношения друг к другу. Просто выгнать зачинателей раздоров с обоих сторон мы не можем, да и не даст это ничего. Без ясно выраженной позиции всего сообщества, направленной против раздоров, одними только административными мерами, как мне кажется, не удастся добиться результата. Проблема в том, что многим участникам не хочется заниматься всеми этими разборками и их отношение понятно. Ну ладно, куда деваться, нужно что-то с этим делать. MaxiMaxiMax 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ну вот, мне теперь тоже стыдно, что я предпочёл отсидеться.
Административными правилами, вообще говоря, можно очень много чего добиться. Проблема, как я её вижу, в том, что у вас в админах слишком много людей, у которых есть перманентные проблемы с самоконтролем (тебя я к ним не причисляю), и они начинают этими правилами махать направо и налево для доказательств своей точки зрения. Это, естественно, никому не нравится, и правила начинают обмусоливаться ради самого процесса. Конечная цель (создание нормальной атмосферы для создания энциклопедии) при этом забывается. Обзываться, оно, конечно, нехорошо, но тратить потом своё и других участников время на выяснение того, какой параграф был нарушен и те ли люди были наказаны и надо ли было их вообще наказывать и если да то согласно тому ли параграфу который был упомянут изначально, по-моему, очень глупо и бесполезно — к моменту выявления истины изначальный повод спора будет всеми окончательно забыт, и на руках будет только разъярённая толпа недовольных правилами/админами/друг другом/жизнью вообще пользователей, которые не упустят случая продолжать разборки при следующем удобном случае. Как при этом продолжать работать над энциклопедией — непонятно.
В общем, не хочу никого учить жить — очень надеюсь, что разберётесь сами. Не знаю, насколько мой совет будет полезен, но я бы порекомендовал продолжать разрабатывать правила, и в особенности механизм привлечения админов к ответственности за слишком вольное их применение (участие админа в войне правок с последующей им защитой статьи от редактирования с целью закрепления своей версии, например, вообще ни в какие ворота не лезет). Just my two roubles worth :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

«Стало понятно, отчего в английской Википедии там и тут начали появляться сбежавшие русские википедисты.»
Здорово сказано, чёрт возьми. В точку. :-))) --exile The Wrong Man 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cities and towns in Russia

You're welcome, and it looks like you have done most of the work. Nothing was left for me :) Conscious 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ostafievo

I reverted your edits in Ostafievo International Airport because Ostafievo is the official name and used in the official website of the company [6] as well as other English sources, documents and promotional materials.--Nixer 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Ostafievo International Airport.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Привет!

Привет! As I have found out and i am sure that you are a reliable and fair person, I 'll ask: Why so many people from Russian Wikipedia go to English(American?) Wikipedia. Почему?—This unsigned comment was added by Kniaz (talk • contribs) .

Hi there, Kniaz! I cannot speak for all Russian users, of course, but it seems to me that the a good portion of Russian users who edit English Wikipedia live outside of Russia. They all probably have their own reasons for avoiding Russian Wikipedia. I, for example, having lived in the U.S. for several years, find that it is easier for me to coherently put my ideas in writing in English than in Russian. It is also more interesting for me to build up on an already existing foundation of over one million articles. English language overall is more precise and structured than Russian, which fits better with my way of thinking. I also don't like the "looks good let's leave it like that" attitude that is all too common in Russian Wikipedia. Others may have different reasons. Also, the atmosphere in Russian Wikipedia has not been very healthy recently. Continuous scandals, revert wars, content disputes presented as vandalism are, unfortunately, very common these days. It's not that we don't have the same problems in English Wikipedia, but they are harder to avoid there due to a much smaller number of articles. People who know English fairly well may find themselves to be more productive here than there.
Finally, I see that you are calling the English Wikipedia "American". That's not entirely true. There are plenty of American editors, of course, but since English is a de facto international language, it would be more accurate to regard the English edition international.
I don't know if this answers your question well, but hey, I tried :) See you around and don't forget to have fun.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I have different reason. I see many lies in English Wikipedia and as the number of users here is higher, the lies spread very fast and I think even can influate the real life and what the people think. My opinion is that number of conflicts in English Wikipedia is much higher especially due the fact that many users of it came from different countries with different views. It is much easier to avoid conflicts in Russian wikipedia.--Nixer 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaliningrad Oblast

Hello, Ezhiki! So you would prefer I keep the towns in Category:Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast for now?

Also, I noticed your corrections to the Kaliningrad Oblast articles with .ogg files I had uploaded. I have been applying your style to my .ogg inclusions in other articles now as well. Would you mind taking a look at the intros to some Polish cities with IPA to see if you can improve upon my changes? The ones I have edited so far are: Wrocław, Toruń, Gdańsk, Bydgoszcz, Olsztyn, Malbork, and Elbląg (I think that's it). Olessi 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Category:Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast is here to stay permanently. It was created as a part of the bigger Category:Cities and towns in Russia project, when the latter cat grew to over 500 entries, and it was requested that subcats be created. Cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast is just one of those cats.
As for the style I introduced, it was actually meant as a quick fix so it would be possible to have the audio link but still retain {{lang-ru}}. I am not claiming it to be the final solution, and it can probably be improved somehow. You did, however, implement it exactly the same way I would have in the articles you asked me to check. The only thing is that I would separate different language versions with a semicolon instead of a comma, but again, I don't think there is a rule to that effect.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and thanks for fixing the civic rights redirect! Olessi 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another mediation update

Per your request to reassign this mediation, I've listed it as unassigned. As it has been open for some time without any activity, I'm asking that the parties re-confirm that they are still interested. Please do so on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. Once both of you have signed, I'll find someone to take the case. Essjay Talk • Contact 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Essjay.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got it

I do agree that english is language that isn't as complicated as russian (try reading the poems, expessioly Alexander Pushkin). Thanks for pointing it out for me, but I have been to russian wikipedia only few times, since I'm not exactly russian(look at my page). And the explanation about english wikipedia instead of american I must disagree(no disrespect). You see, Wikipedia was created in USA and originnaly was english only(the first time i went on wikipedia it was said wikipedia was created due to 9/11. ?!). Good luck with you're future work and имейте хорошее здоровье(I should stop writting in paretisees). Dosvidanie dorogoy drug. P.S. Pushkin's poems are actually easier to learn and memorize, unlike other ones. kniaz march 31, 2006 10:35 pm.

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Image:Admin mop.PNG Hello Ezhiki, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your comments and your vote of support. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 18:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Far East

I don't think it correct to give "Дальний Восток России" as the Russian equivalent of "Russian Far East" since the term is fairly rare in Russian. While in English the term "Far East" usually refers to the larger region, "Дальний Восток" is never used in Russian in that way - it always refers to the Russian Far East. Note that if you search in google in Russian, for "Дальний Восток" you get 6 million results, while "Дальний Восток России" gets you only 40,000. Qaramazov 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I made this correction is because this is the English-language Wikipedia, and, when speaking of that region in English, it is customary to specify that it is Russian Far East, as opposed to the Far East in general. In Russian, of course, that distinction is made differently (and that fact should be mentioned in the article), but we must use the name that's most familiar to Anglophones (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)). Hope this explains my corrections. Please let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In reply to your message: I in no way question the use of the ENGLISH term "Russian Far East." Rather, I am saying that correct RUSSIAN translation for it is "Дальний Восток." I am not sure how "familiar to anglophones" criteria can be used here, since presumably anglophones are not going to be familiar with either of the Russian terms. It is my understanding (incorrect?) that the purpose of providing the Russian term is to inform the reader how the entity is actually called in Russian, not to translate back the English term. Note that the Russian name for "Joseph Stalin" is given in WP as "Иосиф Сталин" not as "Джозеф Сталин," even though the latter version would be more familiar to the anglophones.—This unsigned comment was added by Qaramazov (talk • contribs) .
I understand your concern, but your Joseph Stalin example cannot be used as an exact analogy. "Russian Far East" is the name under which the region is known to foreigners, and "Дальний Восток России", or "Российский Дальний Восток", is a translation of that term (one that is used in Russian texts targeting foreigners). "Дальний Восток"/"Far East" proper is the name of that same region used in Russia internally—a fact that the article must mention (perhaps in the intro line alongside with the longer version, or in the second paragraph). Putting "Дальний Восток" as an equivalent right after the term "Russian Far East" is just not right. I agree that both terms could be better placed within the article, but frivolously mixing two variants of the term is not the way to go. How about rewriting the intro this way:
Russian Far East or simply Far East (Russian: Да́льний Восто́к, Dalny Vostok) as it is referred to in Russia, is a term that refers to the Russian part of the Far East, i.e., extreme south-east parts of Russia, located between Siberia and the Pacific Ocean.
This can still be improved, but it illustrates what I am trying to say fairly well. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. Or:
Russian Far East (Russian: Да́льний Восто́к, Dalny Vostok, literaly "The Far East," see #Terminology), is a term that refers to the Russian part of the Far East, i.e., extreme south-east parts of Russia, located between Siberia and the Pacific Ocean.
I.e., it might make sense to have a link to the Terminology section that explains that a different term is used in Russia to refer to the larger Far East. Qaramazov 18:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That'll work, too, although I still like my version (with a Terminology section link included) slightly better. Well, that's just my preference; it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Would you prefer to write the Terminology section yourself? If not, I can take care of it today or tomorrow. By the way, as a side question, why are you interested in the RFE? You are not one of them Karamazoff Bike dudes, are you? :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Вырос там. Вот как раз сейчас во Владивосток билеты ищу. "Air routes connect Vladivostok with Seattle and Anchorage" (статья "Vladivostok"). Если бы! Туда сейчас только через Японию, Китай, Корею или Москву! Меньше чем за $1500 не добраться. Кстати, "Терминология" уже там, в конце статьи. Qaramazov 20:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Мда, про Сиэтл и Анкоридж это я писал. Данные десятилетней давности. Через Сеул, говорят, сейчас удобнее всего (из США во всяком случае), хотя лично я не знаю — я как из Владивостока уехал, так в него ещё ни разу не возвращался. Дороговато, полторы штуки-то! В общем, успехов.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization of the Russian Language Mediation

Hi there, I've been assigned your mediation case. What we need to do now is firstly decide via what means we wish to conduct the case. We have three options: via Wikipedia, via e-mail or via and IRC channel. I would favour the wikipedia route but am happy to do any of the three. I look forward to hearing from you. --Wisden17 13:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Wikipedia messages as well, but would agree to email if necessary. I do not have access to IRC most of the time. Thank you for taking this case, Wisd.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
As an uninvolved but interested observer, I'd strongly prefer it if you conducted this on Wikipedia so that I might watch and drop the occasional comment; it is, of course, your discretion. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 20:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The mediation has been opened. I have left a few initial questions which I would be interested to hear answers to. The mediation will take place on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. --Wisden17 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am already writing some comments.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vorkuta

Great to know we understand each other. I too know the difference in usage of both the Nazi and the Soviet slogan. However, my main problem was that it's not the broadness of the usage that is important here, but rather the sarcasm/cruelty behind them. Any way, perhaps the matter could be expanded someway-somewhere. Any ideas? //Halibutt 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you eyesight is so good that you even see things that don't exist and can't exist. If you think the the Soviet slogans were intended to be sacrastic in any way, it just shows you complete lack of understanding of the subject. Similar nonsense is that Soviets in their propaganda would draw any connection with the Nazis. The worst thing, though, is your calling others' edit vandalism. It may have been a while since you last time checked WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:VAND#What vandalism is not. Maybe you could spend 10 minutes on reading up. I am not even suggesting that you reread WP:NPOV because I don't think it could make any effect on you. --Irpen 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, folks, calm down, please! I don't think Halibutt meant that the Soviet slogan was intended to be sarcastic on purpose. Rather, it is us who perceive it as sarcastic now that we know that Vorkuta in those days was in effect one large forced labor camp. When looked at from this point of view, the analogy with the German slogan is very well seen (even though that effect was unintentional). However, mentioning that analogy in the caption of the image (which, remember, shows not the entrance to the forced labor camp but to the whole town) may lead to wrong conclusions.
Anyway, this is one of those topics which I do not really like to get involved with. I'd say take the analogy out because it is mostly misleading in its present form, or reword it (how, I don't know), but you folks obviously have more experience arguing such matters with each other, so I'll leave it up to you. Of course, please keep it civil and NPOV—I know that both of you are perfectly capable of that. Obviously we all have different backgrounds, and we all had been brainwashed a little differently; hopefully all those misunderstandigs can take back seat to our main goal, which is to build the greatest encyclopedia ever.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baykalsk reference

I just found this "Radio Liberty on Irkutsk" reference. As you asked for a citation, do you think it's good? --Nikai 09:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it works fine. The only reason I requested citation was because that particular passage was the first edit by a new user, and I was too lazy at that moment to find the confirmation myself. I didn't really mean to offload that work onto someone else; it was rather intended as a reminder to myself to check that piece when I edit the article next time. Anyway, thanks for taking time to find the appropriate reference.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzbekistan

Hello Ezhiki. I am writing to you, cause you as a Russian Wikipedian can help. Do you think categories such as Cat:Uzbek society or Cat:Uzbek people should be renamed to "Uzbekistani"? Uzbeks are an ethnic groups, many people from Uzbekistan are not ethnic Uzbeks, so I think it is wrong to have for example ethnic Russian resident of Uzbekistan under "Uzbek people" category. What do you think? - Darwinek 13:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes perfect sense, and similar distinction is made in Russia as well ("русские" for nationality and "россияне" for the citizens of the nation). It is important to remember, however, that I am no expert in Uzbek affairs. Still, if there is a vote on that matter, please let me know—I'll support your point of view as quite logical.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Nominated on WP:CFD. You can vote or comment here. - Darwinek 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country subdivisions, subnational entities etc.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country , IMO the rename should be taken with more care. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Situation of administrator abuse

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [7] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

my suggestion: collect evidence. E.g. I post every admin right abuse to my User page. Maybe try to handle personal attacks in a distant manner. Look what is true and what not. E.g. if he calls you asshole, say this is only one part of you. If he repeats this it could be maybe labeled a lie, so he is a liar. Be dry and cool and precise. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former country subdivisions

Category:Former country subdivisions - i collected some cats there to see what exists and how naming is done. I found lots of other "Former ..." cats. FYI, you did not write HistoricAL. The cats I found use AL. Maybe your english is poor as mine : [8] Some German speaker with poor English skills has corrupted the correct "Administrative Divisions" into "Subdivisions". :-) The term is used by ISO 3166-2. LOL Tell no one they are based in Berlin (IIRC) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what I was thinking, but "historical", of course, is what I should have written. It's little things which gave Stirlitz away :) Funny thing about those "subdivisions" though—most dictionaries indeed define "subdivision" as an "act of dividing the land into pieces" (I did not know it was the primary meaning), but one would think the "poor applicability" of the term would have been caught a lot earlier. In fact I think I was prevented from using more precise terms (in favor of "subdivisions") by native English speakers (masquerading Germans, I guess) a while back when I was working on Russian federal subjects overview. Anyway, ISO or not, "administrative divisions" seems to be a better choice, don't you think? And thanks for the cat pointer—it's pretty interesting.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
LOL it was me who did not write the AL on the CfD page. maybe you just copied this afterwards. Subdivision as you call it may be US usage only. We should discuss the term at Talk:Subdivision. Canada usage is different. One can divide lots of things, that some USians now only use the word in one meaning is their problem. Administrative divisions would not include census divisions or other official statistical groupings. Can be desired or not. But then the contents of the cats in some instances have to change too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's one of the things that I think are better left to native speakers to decide. I left another def link at Talk:Subdivision. Most of the dictionaries define "subdivisions" as land lots, but then most of those dictionaries are American anyway. The word, as applied to administrative divisions, sounds perfectly fine to me, but since I am not a native speaker I may be very wrong in that regard. Please keep me posted if anything new develops. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] помощь с переводом

Привет помоги, пожалуйста, не могу перевести предложение.

Yet more complexity is introduced here than might be expected. The programmer (especially the functional programmer) will pick up right away on the significance of introducing time and state (memory).

Что значит выделенный фрагмент?

Навреное, не мешало бы поправить текст, т.к. по словарю это разговорный, а не литературный.

Ъыь 07:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"To pick up on smth." = "to grasp, to understand smth.", т.е. отрывок можно перевести как "программист (в особенности функциональный) немедленно поймёт значимость введения понятий времени и состояния (памяти)". Единственное, насчёт чего я не очень уверен — это словосочетание "функциональный программист". По-русски так можно сказать? Если нет, то можно перефразировать на что-то вроде "специализирующийся в функциональном программировании".
Что касается "to pick up on", то это довольно разговорное выражение.
Надеюсь, помог. Дай знать, если есть ещё вопросы.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Спасибо большое! (ё!) Ъыь 15:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias

Tobias sometimes does this, to be more objective. Or to look so - this is not very clear to him. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban kazak

Yeah, there were 3 more autoblocks that pgk unblocked.--Commander Keane 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! How come they didn't show up in the list of currently blocked IP addresses and usernames when I looked Kuban kazak's username up?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well the search doesn't work for that. pgk's approach: "since the autoblocks were from the user himself, I went to the ipblocklist, selected next 500 and searched within the page for his name, then next 500 the same.". You need to manually check the ipblocklist for autoblocks from the blocking admin.--Commander Keane 20:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, crap, I didn't know the search didn't work (never needed to look that far back before, I guess). Thanks for the tip, though—very good to know!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

There's an archived discussion here. The salient points seem to be
  • There's not a mandated place.
  • Stubs are an editor feature (and a form of sef-reference) so belong at the end after user features. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 12:38 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for pointing me out to the archived discussion; while I was sure the issue had been discussed before, I was unable to find an archived thread on my own.
One question I still have is about your second point above. Stub notices are an editor's feature, true, but to the reader the categories will always show in the very bottom of the page, no matter where in the edit screen they are located. For the reader, it really makes no difference. For the sake of editors (those, who frequent the "edit this page" tab), however, wouldn't it be more convenient to leave the stubs immediately after the main text (i.e., before cats and interwikis), especially since the location isn't mandated anyway? I realize that "stubs-to-bottom" is an AWB feature, but somehow in the archived discussion nobody mentioned the point I am trying to make. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Stubs include a category, so they should definately come after any "real" categories. Before or after interwiki is debateable, perhaps it doesn't matter much. Rich Farmbrough 17:24 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I guess I simply do not understand the purpose. OK, suppose we put the stub notices after categories, but what's the point? It makes no difference to readers (cats will show up in the browser after stub notices anyway), and it makes no difference to most of the editors. It is a minor annoyance to editors like me, however, who are accustomed to seeing stub notices right after the main text. Now, on the other hand, if we put notices to where editors like me are accustomed to seeing them (right after text), it would have no effect whatsoever on readers (the article will look exactly the same), and those editors who did not care in the first place will continue to not care about it. Editors like me will get rid of the inconvenience. So, is it really worth to inconvenience some people just for the sake logical purity of the article's structure?
Speaking of "logical purity", I don't even see it. If the article structure is "text+stubs+cats+iw", then, if some stubs contain cats, it translates to "text+(stub+cat)+cats+iw" = "text+stub+cats+iw"—nice and logical. If we put stubs after main categories, then the final structure will look like "text+cats+(stub+cat)+iw"—category list flow is interrupted. What's the logic in that? No matter which way you put it, it does not make sense!
I am not trying to make a big deal out of it, lest you got that impression; it is admittedly a very insignificant point. It's just that I enjoy being logical as much as the next guy, and just couldn't miss a chance to debate such a woefully incongruous inconsistency. If I missed anything in my logic or if you are sick and tired of this discussion, please let me know—I have no intention of forcing you to continue discussion you do not enjoy (I'm only keeping it out of my eternal ever-burning desire to get to the bottom of things :). Best, —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look here you will see that having stub before cats gives a cat listing like this:
Categories: Northwestern Russia geography stubs | Cities and towns in Vologda Oblast.
Rich Farmbrough 21:11 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Ah, got you! Only took me what? A day?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Ozyorsk, Kaliningrad Oblast
Stavropol
Penza
Orenburg
Posad
Podolsk
Gusev
Zelenograd
Oka River
Kaluga
Central Black Earth Region
Federal Assembly of Russia
Voronezh
Cherepovets
Konstantinovsky District, Rostov Oblast
Izhevsk
Bryansk
Rybachy
Chernyshevskoye
Cleanup
Kovrov
Culture of the Soviet Union
Gorodishchensky District, Volgograd Oblast
Merge
Lada
Lubyanka prison
Yuan
Add Sources
Uryupinsk
Saransk
Vladimir Yegorov
Wikify
Pazardzhik
En banc rehearing
Christine Cavanaugh
Expand
Politics of Europe
Igor Sikorsky
Postage stamps and postal history of Russia

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we have an EditBot, who could do the editing for us? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Man, you've just stolen my idea :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD Subnational entity

[edit] Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ё

I loved the "Участники за букву ё" on your Russian user page! I support it too. See reply about Altay on my talk page.--Amir E. Aharoni 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk/Language

Hi Ezhiki! Someone at the Language Reference Desk could use your help. Would you please take a look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Question_about_Russian? I would be very grateful if you could contribute to the discussion. Thank you in advance. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, so I provided a very simple explanation based on my knowledge of Russian. Hopefully that'll suffice.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I supposed you weren't a linguist, but I still decided to ask you for help as you are a native speaker. I think you've given a helpful explanation, though! Thank you! Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old oblasts

I thought you might like this:[9]. And this [10]. Don't worry it is the site that needs permission not you actually quite a lot of pre-1973 stuff there. --Kuban Cossack 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first one has no references, but it can be useful for re-checking. As for the second—whoa, thanks! It's the next best thing to this! I only wish I had enough time and skill to process these maps into something usable by Wikipedia. I now have one less reason to procrastinate with the Russian historical divisions project :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet another site; http://whp057.narod.ru/index.htm
Check the страны мира find Russia there go to any division and see for yourself all of the dates rulers and even the capital of that division.--Kuban Cossack 19:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this one I know. It's good for cross-reference, but I avoid using it as a primary source because it is unclear where the information came from and because the site contains numerous errors. Anyway, thanks for the note—I much appreciate your assistance.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .ogg formatting

Hello Ezhiki! Would you have any objections if I restylized the .ogg formatting on the Kaliningrad Oblast towns to the following (using Pravdinsk as an example)?

Pravdinsk (Russian: Правдинск (help·info); until 1946 German: Friedland in Ostpreußen (help·info); Lithuanian: Romuva; Polish: Frydląd) is a town in Kaliningrad Oblast...

It removes the lengthy "pronunciation" while still having links to Help and Info. Olessi 19:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, help and info links do not concern me as much as the loss of the lang-ru template. Perhaps we could abbreviate the word "pronunciation" or replace it with something shorter? The only reason why I even bothered to reformat the intro in the first place was to retain both lang-ru and the audio. Your new version looks and reads better, there is no doubt about that, but it loses {{lang-ru}}. I see that as an unacceptable loss. I'll try to tweak the intro a bit more to combine the best of both versions, but I can't promise I'll be successful. Do you have any ideas as to how both templates can be retained without making the intro look ugly? If all else fails, perhaps it would be better to make a small infobox just for audio. It's just a wild idea, though.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by your preference for the lang-ru template. It is my understanding that the lang templates exist to make things a tad easier for contributors to type; there's no visual difference in the actual article. Aside from consistency with using {{lang-lt}} for Romuva and {{lang-pl}} for Frydląd, what is the advantage of using {{lang-ru}}?

Here are some of the various formatting styles I have seen used:

The middle choice (currently used at Pravdinsk) looks ok if it is the only "alternative" name listed, but when multiple names are listed "pronunciation" and the extra parentheses clutter everything up. I don't have any experience with coding templates myself, so I'm not sure how to design a better template. It seems to me that improving the article's visual flow would be more important than maintaining internal consistency that only editors would see, not readers. Olessi 19:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't realize you were not aware of the {{lang-ru}} template's details; I should have explained. You are right that there is no visual difference. The template, however, also adds metadata, marking the text as written in the Russian language (by means of the HTML span tags), which, among other things, is important for indexing the text by the search engines. See template talk:lang-ru and template talk:lang-uk for more information on that. I realize, of course, that having audio is more important than having metadata, but since the two templates are not mutually exclusive, I'd rather that we find a way of combining them somehow.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting stuff to learn about the template. Is that something specific to the Russian template or is it used in other language templates as well? I first became aware of the proposed formatting when User:David Kernow added it to Prussia. I don't know if he would have any solutions, but would you mind if I invited him to look at the formatting and see if he has any ideas? Olessi 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn't! The more the merrier.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki, Olessi: Great to see you're already well into sorting out what occurred to me when I came by the Prussia article (also Sambia, maybe one other... need to check contribution history), i.e. combining the language and pronunciation links. My next thought is whether a combined template is possible, one that produces the "German: Marienburg (help·info)" kind of format and carries the metadata Ëzhiki mentions above. What do you think? Regards, David Kernow 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David, thanks for joining in. I kind of produced a quick fix in the past (see, for example, Pionersky, Kaliningrad Oblast), but as Olessi rightfully noted, it looks ugly. I tried tinkering with lang-ru/audio combination, and was unable to produce anything better. Perhaps, the solution would be to create a new set of template, something like {{audio-ru}}, which would produce the desired input and retain the metadata?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be useful; are there any template-makers-for-hire available? Olessi 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but since I don't know any, I'll try to make one myself this week. Just let me know if David's version above looks OK, or if you want it to look differently (if so, please provide an example I can work with). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I drafted the {{Audio-ru}} template, which is for Russian only. To use it, type:

{{Audio-ru|Правдинск|RU-Pravdinsk.ogg}}

which produces:

Russian: Правдинск (help·info)

To make a similar template for any other language, just copy the template source to an appropriate place and replace of instances of "Russian" with the name of the language you need (e.g., "German"), and all instances of "ru" with that language's code (e.g., "de"). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Ëzhiki! I have already made Template:Audio-de, Template:Audio-pl, and Template:Audio-uk. Olessi 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded here. This seems to work well and is an improvement over the previous fudges; nice one! Fancy a shot, guys, at (perhaps) the ultimate template, which removes the need for separate templates for each language? Well...
How about a template such as {{Audio-lang|xx|word/phrase|audiofile}} where xx is the two-letter language identifier causing the correct [[''X'' language|''X'']] or [[''X''ian]] and html tags to be substituted? I can only think of using something like #if (about which I currently know little) to select the correct language... which ultimately might make the template unwieldy (too many languages) – but perhaps you (or someone you know) might know a much neater solution... Thanks for your work, David Kernow 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. As for the universal template, that's actually what my original intent was this morning. Almost immediately I ran into some problems (like I said before, I'm not very strong on templates, especially nested and with conditional operators) and then tons of work walked up to my desk in real life, so I didn't have much time left for anything more than individual language-specific templates. Also, last time I checked templates with conditional ops were strongly discouraged; I'd recommend contacting Netoholic for current status update—he used to be very active in hunting those templates down and shooting them on sight. In any case you'll need to find someone more skillful than me to make such a template a reality—there were some perks I have no idea how to approach.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not surprised templates with conditionals are to be avoided; they probably add far too much processing time for what they deliver. There'll probably only be so many {{[[Template:Audio-xx|Audio-xx]]}} needed anyway and once the major examples have been created (as Russian, German, Polish, etc already have been) the flood will subside. Might be useful to noinclude this in each. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where are you?

Category:Wikipedians by number of edits Toby / Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that cat, but I will not list myself there as I'm trying to get a hold of my (already bad) editcountitis. If you are interested in my edit count, it's around 12K; that info is on my userpage. Why are you interested? P.S. Toby??!!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • it is WP:POINT if Tobias calls Tobias Toby. Toby just wanted to let you know that the cat exists. He thinks adding you to the cat would not encourage edit countities. Especially if you have the data on your user page anyway. Tobias whishes you a nice week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microdistrict

Awesome :) Renata 03:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Microdistrict, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter greetings

Khristos voskrese! --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
Khristos voskrese! --Ghirla -трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't celebrate Easter, but thanks for the gesture! Happy Easter to you too.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted bios

You deleted my bios on Moskovskyy Pyasatel. The people are real and are notable as they are prime ministers or leaders of the village.Abc85 11:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you cut it out, please? The joke is getting stale, not to mention your bio-articles did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you insist on inclusion, please provide references which would allow us to see that these people are notable. Same goes for other "пясатель"-related materials you wrote.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This was not at all intended to be a joke, neither vandalism. The village has a leader elected every two years and a prime minister appointed by the leader. It has two main affiliations: liberal and conservative. Currently, the librals are at power. Lots of famous people live in the village. (e.g. Thompson.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abc85 (talk • contribs) .
Please provide primary references, preferrably from reliable sources. According to Wikipedia's policies, it is your responsibility to prove that the information you are adding is true. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Райцентр

Привет! Или я ошибаюсь, или же.. в википедии нет статьи про такое понятие как Райцентр. --Untifler 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Привет! Нет, не ошибаешься. Могу порадовать тем, что этот термин находится в моём to-do, сразу после статьи под рабочим названием "Статус города в Российской Федерации". Задержка только с тем, что необходимо сначала закончить серию про "Administrative divisions of xxx", потому что и критерии статуса города, и критерии райцентра определяются субъектами Федерации независимо друг от друга, т.е. определений райцентра будет 88, по числу субъектов (определения, правда, могут совпадать). Примитивный стаб нарисовать, конечно, можно в любое время, но ценность такого стаба мне представляется сомнительной. А ты к чему хотел это определение прикрутить?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Как обычно началось всё издалека. Просто кто-то в статье про нагайбаков назвал населённый пункт Париж, который вроде как проходит как село, the biggest city in the district. Ну, видимо жителям стран, где в городах живет и по 100, и по 300 человек было впринципе не понятно, как деревя может быть центром чего-либо... ну подумал как более корректно. Вспомнил, что у нас, в Татарстане словом райцентр (а не село!) жители промеж себя называют очень большие села (по 10000 жителей), которые являются центром района. Если же центром района является посёлок - то его так и называют посёлок. В ощем-то справедливо, т.к. жизнь в райцентровых сёлах сильно отличается от жизни маленьких деревень, это даже не совсем сельская местность... Во многих райцентрах у нас хрущевки стоят... Ну так вот. пролучается какая-то неофициальная категория. А в стабе про нее может быть можно привести статистику по численности населения райцентров всреднем по России? например, какой населённый пункт обычно становится райценром... о том что все органы власи, здравоохранения и т.д. обычно сосредоточены в нем.... --Untifler 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Категория, вообще, вполне "официальная". Важен ведь статус административного центра, а не то, как населённый пункт называют местные жители и село ли это, посёлок или город. Есть районы, у районов есть районные центры — ничего затруднительного. Что касается конкретного определения статуса райцентра, то он различен в разных субъектах Федерации. Статистику по населению собрать очень легко — это всё доступно в результатах переписи 2002 г. В общем, когда-нибудь я за это возьмусь, но вряд ли скоро, так что если есть желание начать самостоятельно, то у меня возражений нет. Единственное, что не хотелось бы, чтобы такая статья была только про специфику Татарстана — тему можно развернуть гораздо шире.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vladivostok industry.jpg

Why you don't upload it to commons? It will be very usefull and in other language chapters... Sory for my broken enlish. --Morpheios Melas 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a member of this commons, but you have my permission to upload any of my pictures to this commons with a GFDL license. I am the photographer and I say you can. --Kaspersky Trust 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Creating an account on Commons is just as simple as creating it here in Wikipedia. All you need is a username and password; you can add your email, but that's optional. It is, of course, up to you to decide, but you may very well find later that a Commons account is beneficial to you, even if you access it very infrequently. As for uploading pictures, it's always better when a photographer uploads and tags them himself—it saves a bit of time for others as there is one less step to verify. If you still positively do not want your own account there, then, of course, we'll be glad to upload the photo for you. Thanks much for releasing the rights for it. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This commons is a place I choose not to be a part of because of a general distrust involving the managers. You are welcome to copy any or all of my pictures there with a GFDL license, but I will not be a party to it. --Kaspersky Trust 16:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for getting back with me. I'll upload the image.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg of Chernigov

I think AndriyK just got himself a sock [11]. --Kuban Cossack 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. This is my account. You wanted me to open an account. So here it is.
Well makes little difference. You get an account and the first thing you do is...repeat AndriyKs biggest crime of page moves. Поздравляю. --Kuban Cossack 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ezhiki, you gave Kuban a credit unbloking him for uncivility. But let me bring to your attention that he is continuing his practice of insulting others blaming them for "open facism", little brains, etc, etc. It cannot be tolerated. KPbIC 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
And Rydel is a racist, if one reads his blog or his website then anyone with any civil logic will see this (and if they don't then their amount of brain cells is under question). So I take NO shame in using either of those words. --Kuban Cossack 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You should if only for a reason of maintaining positive wiki-spirit.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't much believe in blocks for incivility and normally do not block people for that. I also don't quite understand why Kuban Cossack's behavior is such a big deal for you, KPbIC; you weren't even targeted. Apart from instant momentary gratification, incivility provides no benefits. In general, if someone is uncivil, it only shows that person cannot exersise proper self-control and is probably an oafish boor in real life. It is so much easier to make a case against such people and to not take their claims and opinions seriously—they unsuspectingly hand you all the weapons. In future, if you feel someone's incivility is out of control, please report such a person at WP:AN/I, or file an RfM/RfC/RfAr instead of soliciting random admins personally. I have no desire whatsoever to host petty bickering on my talk page—I have an encyclopedia to work on.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, to clarify a few moments, first, I was editing under my IP(134.84.etc) for the last few months, and recently opened this account. Second, exactly as you are suggesting, once I reported Kuban kazak's insults to WP:AN/I, and he was banned. Third, you unblocked him [12] and that was the reason I brough the update on Kuban's behaviour to your attention . I wonder, if you were called "дебил", "козел" и "дурень" by Kuban kazak or anyone else, would it affect your view on blocks for incivility or not. Finally, as Kuban wrote right above he takes "NO shame in using either of those words". Given such Kuban's permanent attitude, which indicates the lack of improvement I think it's a mistake for the community to tolerate it further. Best, KPbIC 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets just get the facts straight. K.K. has been at times uncivil. He has been reprimanded for that and not once, including by myself (also not once) even though none of his insults were directed towards me, ever. He has been blocked for that too and I had no objection until he was blocked for the old offence by Miborovsky for the second time after the original punishment block expired. Only because getting blocked twice for the same offense is unfair, I interfered at the time and so did Ezhiki, I beleive.
134, please leave moderation of Kazak to myself and Ezhiki, not because you are not allowed to tell him to be civil, but because the distribution of duties, I propose has a better chance to work. May I suggest, that you, in turn, handle the incivility of user:Ukrained, user:AlexPU and user:AndriyK. I have a feeling that such a distribution of duties would better help achieve the common good. In no way my proposal prevents you from filing an RfC and/or ArbCom and/or WP:ANI against anyone as you see fit. Besides, I see AndriyK in trouble now. He was explicitely prohibited from moving pages like he just did. "AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest."... "Should AndriyK move any page or change the content of any article to conform with his preferred usage before an agreement is reached as to a naming convention concerning historical Russian names and places he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year." Please don't help him moving pages. Besides, Oleg I of Cherni..whatever is just a nonsense name. --Irpen 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Irpen, please do not misinform the community. Read carefully the decission of ArbCom: "AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names". How the Roman numeral "I" is related to Ukrainian names? I added "I" to the title of the article: "Oleg of Chernihiv" -> "Oleg I of Chernihiv" in complete conformance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Monarchical_titles. The reason is explained in the comment of the move. --AndriyK 08:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, let's give it a try.
Commenting AndriyK's page move, in the end all he did was adding "I" to the name of the article. Actually, Kuban kazak's page move on the same article today was controversial; AndriyJ's page move was not. Also, you called "Oleg I of Chernihiv" as a nonsense, but in fact this is what the name convention prescribes (as it follows from the wlink provided by AndriyK, which I checked). "Edward I of England" and "Henry I of France" are given there as examples. Again, in the end, it looks like AndriyK has better knowledge on the subject. Do you want to penalize him for just that? As a community we better use his knowledge. Your reminder for him on ArbCom decision here and on article talk page was sufficient enough. KPbIC 11:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the whole shebang is here! Anyway, even though it's a bit late as the discussion developed beyond this point, I'd like to add that just like Irpen noted, I did not unblock Kuban Cossack because I thought his behavior was not in violation of WP:CIV. I unblocked him because he was blocked twice for the same offense, and because the amount of time that passed between Cossack's last contribution and his block effectively rendered the block useless. As a reminder—uncivility blocks are mainly used to get a party cool down during a particulary heated debate. This is not a punishment, but rather a time-out tool. Of course, a time-out six hours after the incident is pretty much meaningless.

To answer KPbIC's other question—no, I was never called any of those words by Kuban Cossack or any other editor, but I can assure you that if I had been, I would have just reminded the offender about the civility guidelines and shrugged that off. I really don't care what other editors think of me personally, and I certainly would not block (or request a block of) anyone who would call me an idiot or anything along those lines. I realize that others may not take personal insults as lightly as I do, though. Hopefully I was able to explain my attitude, but feel free to let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi there, Ezhiki! I noticed that in your articles about administrative divisions of oblasts the tables say "сельские населённые пункты без населения". Are these ghost towns? Why does it sound so weird "населённый пункт без населения"? I'm sure this is an official формулировка, but could you clarify this for me, since you're so into it? This is just my curiosity :). Thanx and keep up the good work! KNewman 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, these are not ghost towns, not officially, anyway. This particular term (with this exact weird wording) comes from the 2002 Census results. As you probably know, all Russian federal subjects maintain some form of a registry that lists all administrative divisions and settlements. These registries are used for many purposes, Census being one of them. One of the Census questions is about the individual's primary residence. Those residences are mapped to the inhabited localities from the federal subjects' registries. Sometimes, it turns out that no one claimed residence in some of the settlements which are listed in those registries. This may be for various reasons—perhaps people in such settlements evaded Census on purpose or missed it accidentally (think of a khutor of five people, all of whom went hunting to taiga during the Census week :)), perhaps the Census methods had been flawed, or it might have been as simple as a data entry error, or perhaps the settlement was indeed abandonded or died out. In any case, there were some settlements that were listed as active in the registries (so, officially they were not ghost towns), but no one claimed primary residence there. Theoretically, these cases are investigated, and, if there indeed is no population, the settlements are abolished and removed from the registry, at which time one can categorize them as ghost towns. In practice, well, you know... it's Russia. Hope this answers your question.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! This was very informative. Will be waiting for the next oblast of yours :). KNewman 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bratva

Privet, Ēzhik, I noticed you made an edit to Bratva. What do you say we merge it to Russian Mafia? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. The topic does not fascinate me a bit, but a merger seems logical (if you want me to vote somewhere regarding this, just point me to the right place). The only reason I edited this article was a chain reaction caused by creation of Solntsevo disambiguation page.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rat, yozhik

Actually it is Bonny who you have to thank, that is the inspiration: [13]. I thought it was too well done not to forget it... --Kuban Cossack 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Bonny is funny on occasion, really.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our friend's POV

CCed to a small number of users

The Wilno Uprising nasty conflict needs more attention, if you please. Also, check talks and edit Histories of Lviv and Battle of the Lower Dnieper. This may take time though.

I would like to request some attention at Russian, Ukrainian, Polish and Baltic portals, re Vilnius issue but for now, I am requesting the attention of several editors who've could quickly inderstand what the problem is. --Irpen 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KGB

I have joined Commons, as you suggested, and I have uploaded more pictures of Vladivostok. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kaspersky_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5

Also, I did a gamma correction on this picture: 250px

Please inform, is Wikipedia supposed to be transparent, or is it normal to be forced to resolve disputes by email? I would like to know why I am blocked, but nobody will tell me. For two weeks, I have been asking the simple question, "How have I offended?" Nobody will give me an answer. pgk keeps deleting my {{unblock}} request, telling me to contact the person who blocked me by email. As someone who has lived in Communist Russia, this suggestion sounds to me like meeting the KGB in private to ask why I have been targeted. Can't we do things out in the open? --Kaspersky Trust 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Great pictures, thanks!
Regarding your blocks—it all looks like a huge misunderstanding to me. You were blocked by Jayjg on April 25 as he suspected you were a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. He unblocked you two minutes later, probably realizing that there was really no proof that you were a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, it looks that you had been logged in and editing during those two minutes, so your IP was blocked by the system as well (it's called "autoblock").
I have just removed a few autoblocks tied to your username; please try editing one more time (anywhere but your talk page, which is protected). If you still cannot, please email me using the "E-mail this user" link on my userpage. By the way, the only reason it was suggested that you email your blocker was because it was the only legit way for you as a blocked user to contact anyone. It certainly does not mean you were supposed to negotiate under the table—Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent.
Anyway, I left messages to both Pgk and Jayjg, asking to re-check your block history and remove any autoblocks I might have missed (hopefully, I have not). I am willing to take full responsibility for you as I believe you are just a victim of a misunderstanding. Please be assured that this is just an unfortunate incident; Wikipedians are generally very welcoming and willing to help.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to have me reinstated. I am convinced that without you, I would have never been unblocked. I wonder how many other people are in this position, but do not have a guardian angel like you to help them. --Kaspersky Trust 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. I am hardly an angel, but was happy to help out. Please be assured that what happened to you was by no means normal—it's just a series of unfortunate events. Newcomers are always welcome to Wikipedia and are provided assistance when needed. I hope this whole experience did not tar your perception of Wikipedia as a whole. Feel free to let me know if you need anything or have questions—I'll be glad to help. Happy editing!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaspersky Trust

Thanks for the information. I'm now somewhat confused, since I always look at the block log to check the situation when looking at unblock requests (e.g. history of blocks, are they currently blocked etc.), So I can't see how I missed the unblock. I'll make my own apologies. If you want to check for autoblocks you can take a look at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pgk/autoblock.php which is slightly easier to search on but only updates every few minutes. Any autoblock in the last 24 hours could still be in effect. --pgk(talk) 08:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice you also only removed the proection tag, but not the protection itself. That is done now. --pgk(talk) 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki, Thanks for unblocking Kaspersky Trust. You have just shown me that there is another good admin on Wiki. in peace and harmony, Maggiethewolfstar 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome and thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to re-block. He's a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the proof, please. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on a number of pieces of evidence, including CheckUser. By the way, he doesn't really speak Russian; he's using Babelfish to translate for him. That's why he made up that crazy story about promising never to speak Russian any more. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg is lying to you and I can prove it, if you are interested. --Kaspersky Trust 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would he be lying? He may or may not be mistaken based on the pieces of evidence he has (and I must mention that checkuser results are a mighty powerful evidence), but to lie? Why?
It would be quite a disappointment to me to find out that you are a sockpuppet of someone banned through arbitration, but I am more than willing to hear you out just to cover a (very unlikely, unfortunately) event of a mistake. Feel free to contact me through email—you are not really supposed to circumvent bans through third-party IPs even if your ban were unjustified. If this indeed is a mistake, I apologize in advance for all the horrors you had and will still have to go through. If it is not a mistake, oh well, silly me. At any rate, I promise to represent your interests fairly.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I respect your desire to continue this within proper channels, so I will respond to you on my user discussion page. I think it is reasonable to ask that I be allowed to present my case in public without my user discussion page being locked again. Don't you? --Kaspersky Trust 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Your discussion page should remain unlocked. Please do not add an unblock tag, though—it's not going to benefit you much in your current position. I promise to remain involved in your case until I myself see sufficient proof that you are or you are not Zephram Stark.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I knew it was Zephram. His style of interaction is pretty obvious once you get used to it. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for this bit of info. I have my doubts, but then I never met original Zeph before.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See:
for details. "Kaspersky" is just one of the many sockpuppets he creates on an almost daily basis, just to annoy people. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I checked those link out yesterday. My main concern is that this particular account did not do any harm, in fact, I like his gamma-corrected pictures a lot more than the originals. His contribution may correlate with those of Zeph, but in general they were useful, wouldn't you agree? Unless the account holder starts acting with malicious intent exactly repeating Zeph's patterns, I myself would not block him. I just don't see what it is to be gained by blocking him at this point of time, is all. Thanks for the update though.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaving a message for you because I don't want you to think that I ignored you. I have left messages for you twice on my user discussion page, but they were both deleted by User:JW1805. Thank you for everything you did. You're one of the good guys. --Kaspersky Trust 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the gesture. I wish I could do more, but at this point all I have is a bunch of little pieces of evidence against you (none of which is incriminating in itself, but which cannot be ignored as a whole) against your assurances. I like to trust people, but it seems that I cannot do much at this point. If you are Zeph, you will have another chance when your ArbComm block expires. If you are not, I hope you won't discard the whole idea of Wikipedia and give it another try in the future—you know where to turn if you need help. Take care!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ru:Муниципальная реформа в России(2006)

Interesting article - ru:Википедия:Проект:Муниципальные образования.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ochkarik (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. I'll take a look.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Znamenka

No, I'm not going to write this any time soon. I just thought it weird that the only Znamenka mentioned in other WP articles (e.g., Strelna) is not mentioned. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

'k, I'll just make a red link then. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Russian Portal link

Thank you for invitation to Russian portal: I found a lot of useful information there.
I assume you checked some of my edits - it is always a pleasure to know that one's work is not in vain. Any comments?
--Alextalk 19:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I spotted you when you expanded KVN—great job, by the way—and noticed that you are fairly new. Feel free to contact me should you have any questions—I'm always happy to help, and so are other Russian editors.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esalen Institute article

Hello, Ëzhiki. CKA3KA, here. I have been considering nominating the Esalen Institute article for deletion, but since I've never done such a thing, I'd very much appreciate your input. Could you do me the favor of looking at my comments on that article's talk page and letting me know, before I proceed, if I'm all wet on this issue? —CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, CKA3KA! It's nice to hear from you.
Basically, since the page in question is a suspected copyright infringement, it is handled somewhat differently from an outright deletion. To place a page on AfD, you simply add an {{afd}} tag and then go to the "this article's entry" link to the AfD page where you place a new listing. For speedy deletions you add a {{db|''Reason for deletion''}} tag to the top of the page—the page will be deleted by next available admin patrolling the list of speedies. With copyright problems, however, the procedure is to replace contents with the signed {{copyvio|url=source URL}} ~~~~ tag and then list the page on WP:COPYVIO (please also see that page for exceptions, if you are interested).
I am going to let you do this yourself since I gather that you want to practice in such matters, but if you don't want to do it or if you are having problems—please let me know; I'll list this page for you. In any case, thanks for bringing a potential problem to everyone's attention! Hope you are enjoying Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me

For contributing so many Russian related articles to wikipedia, I hereby award you the Hero of the Russian Federation barnstar! Enjoy, abakharev
For contributing so many Russian Russia related articles to wikipedia, I hereby award you the Hero of the Russian Federation barnstar! Enjoy, abakharev
Wow, I'm humbled! Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] С Праздником!

НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ! МЫ ПОБЕДИЛИ!--Kuban Cossack 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ!
МЫ ПОБЕДИЛИ!--Kuban Cossack 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

For the formatting tip. I felt like Marcel Marceau, trapped in a box!

Perhaps you could advise on how Wiki writers document their work. I am accustomed to academic footnoting. If I am writing or revising an article based on one or more source documents, each fact I assert is backed up by something on some page or pages of a reference. The references may be books which are rare. Many articles just have a lot of text, then some clickable links, to web pages which may go dead or whose content may change over time. This makes the facts in the article basically uncheckable. If I merely add my new references in the list at the bottom of the article, it would be difficult or impossible for the next person with an interest in the article to verify my work, because the book, journal, or other source may be hard to find, and there is no way of knowing which work in the list contains which fact. A footnote directing the reader to a specific work helps. But my inclination is to insert a note in the text such as (Smith, pp 213-215) since the work may lack an index. Footnotes often only direct the reader to a book, but not to the page. If I edit an article lacking footnotes, the Wiki style guide says follow the practice of the existing article documentation, which means having a bunch of disputable text followed by a bunch of links or references, so there is no way to document. So far, I have sometimes kept my own documentation file with source notes, in case someone disputes my edit. That seems a poor practice, because I would have to stand by forever to defend my edit. Any thoughts?

Also, is there a guideline for how old a copyrighted work has to be to become public domain and fair game for reproducing, such as illustrations from books or other publications?

Thanks again Edison 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't normally insert notes in the text (such as in your Smith example), although if you do so, it would be better than nothing and eventually someone will fix it for you. To do the things properly, you best starting point would be WP:CITE, which is a Wikipedia style guide that explains when and how to cite sources, and what kinds of sources are acceptable. The footnotes system is explained in detail at Wikipedia:Footnotes; you can use it if you like it, but there are also other acceptable citation methods. For an example of an article with footnotes (so you can see how the formatting works in practice) see Flag of Australia—it's as good of an article as any. All other featured articles are also extensively sourced, so you can use them as examples as well. And, of course, you can add the page numbers in the footnotes if you need to—that's perfectly acceptable.
If you are really unsure about how to add and/or format the sources you used, you can always dump your side file to the article's talk page or in the article's "References" section. This way you wouldn't have to keep them locally, and if someone has a question about sources used they can always see them on the talk page.
As for the copyrights, please see WP:COPY—it's an official policy that should answer your question. If it doesn't, you can ask a question on that policy's talk page, so people who are more knowledgeable in these matters could answer it.
All in all, as long as you provide references in some form (any form), it is better than having no references at all. Also, do try to format your contributions, but don't bother too much about fine formatting details while you are still new around here—it's the content that matters. There are plenty of volunteers who will fix formatting for you, and you will get it all after a while. Rome wasn't built in one day :)
Lastly, if you need a place to experiment, use the communal sandbox, or you can always create your own sandbox in your userspace (e.g., at User:Edison/Sandbox).
Hopefully I was able to help. Please don't hesitate to contact me again if something is still unclear. Happy editing!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin districts

Maybe we should create templates on all subjects like Ukrainians did on their oblasts. --Kuban Cossack 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to do that because a template cannot be as detailed as a separate article without becoming terribly overloaded. If you want to create such templates yourself, please go ahead—the [[Administrative divisions of...]] articles have all the information you'll need. Also, another reason I don't see it as a priority is that we have very few articles about raions, so such templates will for the most part be bright red.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia maps

Hi,

Since you made a lot of contributions regarding administrative divisions of Russia, I thought you could answer my question.

I'm in search of maps of Western Russia, preferably black-and-white (you know, just like these old контурные карты in geography class... :)). The only difference is the scale, as I would like a big map of Western russian with roads, cities and so on but with no background or something like that, to be able to draw on it... :)

Any idea where I might find them? (preferably in public domain of course...)

Thanks! Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If I new where to find such contour maps, I'd be making maps for Wikipedia left and right myself :) Heck, I don't even know if one can buy them anymore. There are plenty of regular maps available, though, but they are a royal pain in the butt to process. Sorry for not being of much help here. If you find something, please let me know as well; I'll continue to keep my eyes open, too, and let you know if I find anything of interest.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, best shot I found are those from MTS, but they only include Russia (and I need a lil' bit of Belarus map too...). And of course, they're copyrighted :(( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Central administrative district like the future relevant articles may be moved to Central administrative okrug. However I'm against transliteration such as "Tsentralny administrative okrug" or "Severo-Vostochny administrative okrug", but of course redirects could be made. Admittedly I can't understand why the general term is okrug while its subdivisions are called districts (e.g.: "federal district for federalny okrug, as in Siberian Federal District", as defined). Thanks anyway :) --Brand спойт 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Okrug" is translated for higher-level divisions, such as federal districts and autonomous districts, because it is common practice and obviously makes sense. For lower-level divisions, translation is often impossible or harmful. Selsoviet, for example, can be translated in a number of ways, many of which would include the word "district". Normally this is not a problem if one is talking just about selsovets, just about raions, etc., but when such ambiguous terminology is employed across the whole hierarchy , it becomes confusing to both readers and editors and eventually leads to inconsistency and chaos. I've been working on Russian administrative divisions for over a year now, and although I did a great deal and standardized quite a lot, there is still plenty to do. As all Wikipedia articles are interrelated, and none really is meant to be standalone (which is why we have categories), it is much preferrable to utilize consistent terminology across the board. I am very willing to compromise when a compromise obviously benefits the readers, but in this case I just don't see that it does. The term "district" is used so often because when an administrative division type is looked at individually, that term is usually the first that comes to mind. Compare one administrative division type to another, and it's only natural to one district, say, "administrative", and the other "municipal". Now try to fit that into the bigger scheme (administrative divisions of the whole country from both modern and historical perspective), and you will be lost in "districts" in a very short time. I hope this makes sense to you—please let me know if I confused you to death.
Now, as for "Tsentralny" vs. "Central"—I am not against the latter at all. The reason why I prefer using the former, however, is because administrative okrugs of Moscow are on the same administrative level as raions of other federal subjects, and the names of those are transliterated, not translated. Why? Because the names of raions are not always translatable. See a discussion at Talk:Pavlovsk (disambiguation). For consistency sake, I transliterated the Moscow administrative okrugs' names, so I would be able to bundle them with raions for disambiguation purposes. Very selfish, but efficient, and I intend to keep it that way until the project is completed. Of course, like you said, redirects (either way) will work fine.
Hope I addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you need further clarification. I believe that if you look at the bigger picture you will understand why the naming scheme I use is what it is. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Привет. Обращаюсь как к человеку как мне кажется сведущему в Naming conventions. Нужна помощь в решении одного разногласия с User:Irpen. По-моему русское написание здесь совершенно неуместно. Нет совершенно никаких причин его добавлять. Петр Могила - молдавского происхождения, Киевский метрополит, умер до Переяславской Рады. Альтернативное английское имя Peter Mogila в статье приведено. "Pyotr Mogila" можно сказать в английском языке неизвестно совсем [14] 20 линков (включая 16 from Wikipedia). Далее в обсуждении User:Irpen пытается предствить будто я убираю английское написание, сопровождая это оскорблениями в мой адрес и неуместными инсинуациями. --Yakudza 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Действительно, Ёжики, посмотри на мои инсинуации на talk и прокомментируй, если не в лом. А то действительно откуда взялось правописание Mogila, совсем непонятно. Не из воздуха же в самом деле? --Irpen 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Здравствуйте, друзья. Я вообще стараюсь не вмешиваться в обсуждение тем, о которых практически ничего не знаю, но раз уж вы меня просите персонально... После просмотра статьи, приложенных ссылок и страницы обсуждения, мои впечатления и комментарии таковы:
  • Irpen, пожалуйста, умерь ироническую интонацию. Ты же прекрасно знаешь, что в таких ситуациях фразы типа "please control your itch" ни в коей мере не способствуют разрешению конфликта.
  • Yakudza, я не вижу никаких оскорблений и инсинуаций со стороны Irpen'я. Вышеприведённая фраза была явно излишней, но на оскорбление или инсинуацию тянет с большой натяжкой. Если есть желание по этому поводу подраться — зовите медиаторов. Было бы гораздо лучше, однако, если бы вы оба сфокусировались на контенте, без перехода на личности и язвительных подколок.
  • Что касается добавления русского написания имени в текст статьи:
    1. Одно из общепринятых в английском языке написаний —Peter Mogila. Это, надеюсь, никто не оспаривает (см. Britannica и google books).
    2. "Пётр Могила" (Pyotr Mogila)— русский вариант имени.
    3. Логично предположить, что английский вариант "Peter Mogila" — это преобразование русского, а не украинского варианта имени.
    4. Поскольку "Peter Mogila" является одним из распространённых в англоязычной библиографии вариантов и поскольку, как показано пунктом выше, это преобразование русского варианта имени, то включение русского имени (последним в списке, разумеется) имеет смысл, поскольку объясняет читателям, откуда вообще взялся вариант "Mogila". Если для украинских редакторов избавиться от русского текста важнее чем удобство читателей (пусть и небольшое), то это очень грустно. Без русского варианта, на мой взгляд, качество статьи хоть и ненемного, но упадёт.
    5. Дополнительно хочу отметить, что русское имя должно быть записано кириллицей, а не латиницей, т.е. должно быть "Пётр Могила", а не "Pyotr Mogila".
Что касается наименования статьи:
  • Irpen абсолютно прав, указывая на тот факт, что согласно решению Арбитражного Комитета "moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at WP:RM". После этого вопрос о переименовании статьи может быть поставлен на голосование согласно обычной процедуре.
В заключение хочу отметить, что я старался построить комментарии на логике. Надеюсь, мне это удалось. Какие из этого следуют выводы и что делать дальше — решайте сами.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Прошу прошения, что втянул в это разбирательство, но мне казалось, что вы ранее проявляти некоторый интерес к подобным темам, а во-вторых мой печальный опыт общения с Irpen даже по совершенно отвлеченным и нейтральным вопросам показывает всю сложность такого "сфокусированного" обсуждения (хотя я так и не понял в том случае почему диктор или "диктор для слепых" не журналист, можно было б еще подискутировать, но есть более интересные занятия). Собственно я обратился к вам, с чтобы попытаться как-то сбить накал эмоций и как-то "сфокусироваться".
Теперь собственно о сути. Как мне кажется "логический" путь в данном вопросе не совсем подходит, особенно если использовать логические построения не для нахождения истины, а для доказательства своей правоты. По этому принципу можно построить довольно "логичную" систему доказательств почему скажем для Владимира Путина нужно приводить украинское имя, связав это логической цепочкой с Киевской Русью, древнерусским языком, "ять" и устроить замечательную дискуссию на странице обсуждения, доказывая, что вариант Путін ближе к английскому. Полагаю, что в этих случаях лучше руководствовадся существующими правилами а также избегать заведомо провокационных включений. Собственно такие включения, как мне кажется, чаще всего диктуются не желанием что-либо прояснить для англоязычного читателя, как-то улучшить статью, а просто некоей ностальгией по тем временам, когда Украина была частью Союза. Интерес к дискуссиям в интернет-форумах на межнациональные темы я утратил много лет назад, поэтому мне бы хотелось это обсуждение свернуть, прошу не принимать мои эмоциональные комментарии на свой счет. Все-таки мне кажется должны быть какие-то единые принципы, подобные транслитерации кирилицы в латиницу и лишенные всякой политической подоплеки. Собственно я не понял, чем улучшит "Пётр Могила" статью, для обычного английского читателя принципы транслитерации кирилицы в латиницу малопонятны. К тому же я не уверен, что Mogila перешел в Британику с русского, а не с польского или румынского. А с тем, что "Peter Mogila" должен присутствовать в статье я полностью согласен.
Последней реплики я не понял, я не предлагал переименовать статью, собственно моя фраза об инсинуациях касалась именно этого, что мне приписывают то, чего я не делал. --Yakudza 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects

Do you still have an interest in getting this going? I've been thinking about putting a bit of effort in in this area, and thought I'd go and see if a WikiProject existed on it, but alas, found that it was inactive. Rebecca 07:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rebecca! I am indeed still involved in this project and will eventually return to it. If you are interested in joining—by all means please do so. If you need a list of high-priority things to-do, let me know, or just dive in and contribute in the areas you feel need most work. Thanks much for your interest and willingness to help!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I sure would like to join. Do you have any suggestions for where I might get started? It's an area I'm very interested in but don't have a ton of background knowledge, so some guidance really wouldn't go astray. Rebecca 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You know, it's probably even better than you don't have much background knowledge, because the most important thing to do (well, to complete I should say) is the infoboxes. Currently the majority of entries on Russian republics have infoboxes, but ideally all federal subjects should have them. Infoboxes are definitely a priority number one at this time. Adding them is fairly easy, but will require lots of research in your case, allowing you to understand the topic better and to build a foundation for you to make further improvements; all without going too deep into the details. Also, I recently added a new line ("legislature") to the infoboxes, but did not follow through with it. Most of the republics' infoboxes do not have this line filled—that's another task you may want to consider.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion. I'd love to see infoboxes done first, but if you are not going to have fun in the process, that can certainly wait. Another course of action can be taking any stub (Magadan Oblast, for example, is as good as any) and trying to expand it according to the guidelines of the project; perhaps one section at a time. I'm afraid I won't be of much help when it comes to the English-language resources (understandably, I prefer to use Russian sources and references), so if you find any good ones while you work, I'd much appreciate if you could share them with the rest of the project's participants (and, by the way, please add yourself if you decide to stay). And of course, feel free to contact me any time if you have questions. Again, thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia edits

Hello. I have seen that you left a message for me on User talk:129.12.200.49. I am afraid i did not realise, which is why i did not reply. I do have this user account, but i was lazily not using for the edits to the table of federal subject types. Incidentally I have recently added a table to Republics of Russia, with lots of information on the Republics, i hope everyone likes it! N-edits 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying yourself, and, of course, thank you for your addition—I, for one, like it quite a bit. If it's not too much to ask, could you also to please reference that table, so readers know where the information came from? Looking forward to working with you in the future.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice you have put the note !--"i. e." is debatable-- after my comment "i.e. ethnic Finnish" for Karelians. I realise that my comment is not entirely clear. I do not intend to mean that the Karelians are actually Finnish. I mean to say that the Karelians have the same origins as the Finnish, and am refering to the fact that they were Finnish (except perhaps in some being of the Orthodox church) until 1917. Perhaps something bracketed like "(Finnish ethnic origin)" or "(closely related to Finnish)" would be preferable to "i.e. ethnic Finnish" ? N-edits 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response—I put off replying to your message and eventually forgot all about it. As for the wording, I have no objections to either of the variants you proposed. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vozrozhdeniya vs. Vozrozhdeniye

Hi, Ezhiki. Could you leave your comments here[15]? --Ghirla -трёп- 06:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just did. Thanks for contacting me.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've merged the tect that isn't repitition to ya. --Peta 12:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of usual names

You probably wish to visit the discussion at Talk:Michael of Chernigov - Marrtel 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, no, I don't really wish to, but I guess I'll have to :) Thanks for letting know.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rural settlements

Ok. In that case, I'll make a new category "Cities, towns and villages" in the KO. Although it does seem to be a bit nitpicky to include villages from a list of "towns and cities"... Travelbird

Actually, the plan is to create the Category:Urban-type settlements in Kaliningrad Oblast and Category:Rural settlements in Kaliningrad Oblast (and indeed not only in Kaliningrad Oblast, but in every other federal subject of Russia) when enough articles about the settlements of these types exist to warrant category creation. Otherwise I would have just gone with Category:Settlements in XXX (because believe it or not, there are other types of settlements besides cities, towns, and villages in Russia; a lot more :)). As for the list of "cities and towns", I'll clean it up eventually, when more articles on rural and urban-type settlements are written. Feel free to join in at any stage. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the villages from the Category Cities, towns and villages. Where did you move them to ? Travelbird 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
They are now in Category:Rural settlements in Kaliningrad Oblast.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates?

I got curious: why do you created template like Template:Cities and towns in Tatarstan when exactly the same category exists, is used and the category is much less distracting for a reader? When I see such colored boxes I really wonder what does make them so attractive on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pavel! Categories only contain existing articles, a template (or a list for that matter) also includes those that do not yet exist but should definitely be created. It is easier to navigate through a template than it is via a category. And, of course, templates are pretty :) For additional points in favor of "colored boxes", see Wikipedia:Navigational templates. Hope this answers your questions. Best, —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Final Proposal

As the best expert on the transliteration of cyrillic please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Final Proposal. abakharev 08:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, thanks for the compliment, but I am hardly "the best expert" and I also do not know Belarusian. Still, I added my comment, for what it's worth. In my view, this should really be discussed by Belarusians and native English-speakers, not by a bunch of Slavic editors from everywhere else. Thanks for bringing my attention to this—I'm not sure how I managed to miss that thread.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism, templates, and History21

Thanks for your alert. I don't know where I picked up the "cite" phantom-tag, but it seems to follow me around like a pathetic puppy looking for a home.

And yes - History21's a bud. He also wrote the "God bless you" statement in my user:talk (ironically, given the motivation for your talk visitation). The only thing that pains me more than seeing "fuck" spelled without the "c" is when people can't grasp there/their/they're and to/too/two. : D—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nugneant (talk • contribs) .

Heh, I figured as much :) Thanks for responding. Best of luck to you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ezhiki! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 21:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms of Novgorod

Hi there, Ezhiki! Why is it when I point my mouse on the coat of arms of Novgorod, it says "Coat of Arms of Mari El"? And we have this logo in every article on some town in Novgorod Oblast :). My trip to Turkey was excellent, a lot of swimming, drinking, eating, sightseeing and stuff. And tanning, of course. KNewman 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because I screwed up—I forget to change some little detail every now and then when I copy-paste something. I'll try (again) to be more careful.Just woke up completely and realized that it wasn't me who made this template :)
Glad to hear your trip was good—I myself haven't been to a beach for almost three years now, and that's beginning to suck :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fxed abakharev 11:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 11:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

Hi I'm going to write about the central districts, and maybe other districts in the kronstadt, vyborg, peterhof areas. But you can unlink links you think is unnecessary. /Fiss

Thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. Could you let me know when you are mostly done, please? There are quite a few minor things that need to be changed to make the article not fall out of the bigger picture, but I don't want to interfere with what you do. Also, please maintain consistency of districts' naming—do not confuse city districts and municipal okrugs. Sennoy District, that you have just created, should really be called Sennoy Municipal Okrug, Saint Petersburg, otherwise it is unclear from the title whether it is a city district or a municipal okrug. If it's hard for you to keep track of all naming conventions, I'll make corrections after you are done. Again, thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Okey! /Fiss

[edit] Editing Russian articles instead of Ukrainian :)

Hi there. I like your recent participation here. We can edit Russian articles further to present some referenced (or, first of all, common knowledge) TRUTH there. I.e., you're already playing my game. Or, you, as an admin, can make decisions on some Russian editors that would stop me of describing a real Russia (contact me if you want that). A kind of diplomacy you know. Whatever you choose, I'm OK with. Best wishes,AlexPU 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Alex. I generally have nothing against your most recent edit to Russia, although it looks that in some portions you were overeager to expose negativity that wasn't there or to interpret some of the sources you provided in, eh, somewhat too liberal way, but I take it that you understood my attitude when you reviewed my edit.
As a hard and fast rule, I don't play anyone's games except my own, and the rules of my game are quite simple—stick to the facts; maintain NPOV; provide references, especially to the edits that may be viewed as controversial; be polite, and don't hesitate to listen to others even if you strongly dislike them—you may just discover that you are occasionally wrong. Hmm, looks like I've just quoted most of Wikipedia's key concepts. Oh, well.
I don't particularly enjoy adding negative information about Russia or, for that matter, about any other country or subject (one may say that's because I am not a journalist :)). I much prefer balanced approach—if there is only negative, or only positive information about some controversial topic, it means that the article is pretty much useless. I will never cover up some horrid fact be it about Russia's past or present, but I will do my best to tone it down to make it sound more neutral, while still preserving the core factual information, and, of course, to make sure, that it's indeed a fact. For example, that was the reason why I commented out your addition about militsiya "not usually interfering" with hate-crimes: first of all, it may or may not be true in different parts of Russia, so you cannot draw a general conclusion about this being a practice in Russia as a whole; second—the reference you provided only describes one case; one in which militsiya's inaction was a subject of speculation. Notice that I am not saying that the "not usually interfering" part is untrue—I am merely requesting a better source (one newspaper article is certainly not enough to draw this broad a conclusion). Of course, if I had such better source on hands, I'd added it myself.
Finally, even though I am a Russian admin, I cannot take responsibility for behavior of all Russian editors. It certainly hurts me to see that some folks (both on Russian and Ukrainian sides, with you, unfortunately, not being an exception) are unable at times to stick to a civil discussion. It's no less disgusting when any of the sides tries to push their own POV. With all that in mind, I am but one admin; I can't fix the whole world. I interfere when things get really ugly, I always try to help or mediate when being asked, I always enforce policies when I see one being breached, but unless the sides start listening to one another, my efforts often amount to a nerve-wracking, productive editing-distracting waste of time. Often the debates are over the subjects I either know little about (Old Slavic Ukrainian/Russian architecture being a good example) or have no interest in (such as militsiya). Furthermore, any interference by force means the sides are deprived the possibility (however remote) to settle the disputes among themselves on their own. Sum this all up, and you'll have a decent guide explaining my attitude toward the majority of issues. I often wish I could do something to ease the tensions, but not being born a baby-genius it's not easy for me to do :)
I hope I explained my position. Hope to see you continuing with great contributions of yours and discontinuing some of your less-than-productive behavior. You don't have to like or agree with the Russian editors, just show them some respect—everyone deserves as little.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Варяги узурпировали статью

Надо отнять и поделить :) --Untifler 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Хехе, смешно :) Я, однако, пока не готов про это писать. В принципе, если статью разделить на секции "Норвегия" и "Россия", то про Россию можно будет постепенно наполнять. Потом и другие, глядишь, присоединятся — эти две страны очевидно не единственные использующие концепцию административного центра.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Povorino

Hi, Ezhiki, can you comment on the status of Povorino? (from my talk page):

I just spotted eo:Povorino and ru:Поворино, and it looks to me like this town (1870/1954) is in Voronezh Oblast rather than in Volgograd Oblast. Right? --Nikai 11:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you are right. I will copy your question to User:Ezhiki he is an expert (I will even say the expert) in the matter. abakharev 12:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's in Voronezh Oblast. Thanks for asking.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overdisambiguation

Hi, why did you add excessive disamiguation in Template:Districts of Volgograd Oblast? For instance, is there really a need to disambiguate Bykovsky District if there aren't more than one? Now - I don't know if there indeed are several districts named Bykovsky, but at least nothing points there :) --Punkmorten 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment and concerns. I don't want to overexplain this, but the bottom line is that this overdisambiguation is extremely useful to me while I am working on this project. There are literally hundreds of names to track, and spelling everything out helps me to create disambiguation pages properly, as well as cross-reference the articles and collect the links in a more effective manner. All raions currently have a disambiguator added to their names, even when it seems to be unnecessary—this way I don't have to re-check every single edit I make within the project, thus speeding things up overall. Rest assured, I will be removing the redundant portions once the project is completed, but right now it is still too early. Thanks again for your interest and please let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice answer! I want to help out; are there any English-language sources for this? Punkmorten 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I don't really know—for obvious reasons I prefer using Russian sources. My guess would be that whatever English sources you find are not going to be completely up-to-date. I usually update information in existing articles within a week after the Russian government publishes a list of changes (and they do it more or less on the monthly basis); I wouldn't suppose anyone out there is so interested in the topic as to provide a translation just as fast. However, if you wish to help, I may have something in stock that you would be able to do, if you are interested. Take a look at this project, for example. I kind of abandonded it in the middle, and other participants do not seem to be very active either. Whatever interests you there, feel free to dive in. It is a lot easier to find reliable and accurate English sources on Russian federal subjects than it is on smaller administrative divisions. Another task is creating city/town templates for the oblasts already covered here (the republics and most of the krais are already done; see {{Cities and towns in Krasnodar Krai}} for an example). Again, thanks for your interest, I much appreciate it!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sports palace

Thanks for cleaning up this article! I was hoping someone familiar with Russian would take a look at it. Cheers. --Fang Aili talk 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. In future, if you create an article related to Russia, please list it at Portal:Russia/New article announcements—that's the best way to get the article noticed by Russians. As a matter of fact, I only spotted the one on the Sports Palace because someone else listed it there. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. --Fang Aili talk 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re - welcome

thanks for the welcome message, but i think you may be the one who needs to review npov!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.211.139 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Makarov

Hi there, Ezhiki! I just thought that if I add 10 more people, I will have to add their birth and death dates. Their dates are (or will be) listed in the articles themselves, anyway. You are free to restore them, if you wish. However, you will have to add more dates for other people then in order for a disambig page to look nice :). KNewman 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you one lazy butt! :) See, this is what happens to people when they move to Moscow—you are becoming one of them! :)
Anyway, all kidding aside, WP:MOSDAB#People asks to provide the dates of birth/death only when you know them; it does not require all entries to be formatted identically in that regard. The bottom line is that it's OK not to add the dates for new entries, but there is really no reason to remove the ones that are already there. I'll add this dab page to my to-do list (although I can't guarantee that I'll find all the dates), but if there is an easy way for you to add dates when you expand the pages in future, that'd be swell. Cheers, and keep up a good work—I'm really glad others took interest in these dab pages.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Hello, I dislike infoboxes intensely, because they encumber the pages without adding anything of value. As most Russian city articles are stubs, I envisage the nightmare which the arrival of infoboxes may cause here. Image jams and template jams are guaranteed. People would start flooding the stubs with silly coats of arms. Actually, I can't see any point in infoboxes. They usually repeat the information given in the text and make the articles, especially stubs, look overcluttered and slovenly. We should improve and expand the articles, add the coordinates properly, before embarking upon this risky infobox affair. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that infoboxes are useless, but completely agree that adding them at this point of time in their present form is going to be a mess. The positive side of infoboxes is that they can include information that otherwise simply pollutes the actual article (former names, town status year, jurisdiction, population trends, coordinates, official website, coats of arms (what's wrong with having those, by the way?), etc. etc.). Having all this basic information in one place cleans up the article and allows editors to see immediately if anything is missing—not an easy feat when all this info is scattered around in bits and pieces of text. It also helps determine if the article is indeed an article, or just a long stub with Rambot-like narrative statistics. The down side, of course, is that adding an infobox to the majority of Russian city/town geo-stubs in their present form would leave nothing in the text body, and that the current infobox layout is too generic and contains too much information irrelevant or poorly applicable to Russia. Anyway, if an infobox developed to specifically deal with Russian cities/towns is created, if image layout issues are resolved, and if such a template is added in a way that does not diminish the quality/visual appearance of an article, and if it is only added to the articles that have content covering issues beyond simple stats, would you, well, if not support, but at least be neutral to such an initiative?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course I would be neutral if the issues are resolved. Yet I don't see how it could be done. If we move sparse extant information in geo-stubs to the infoboxes, then we could do without any text at all. In most cases, the infobox would just absorb all the data that there is in such articles. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's why I think it's too early at the moment to worry about infoboxes at all. But if WikiProject Cities is going to be an unstoppable tank "requesting" infoboxes to be added left and right, we'd better have an decent Russia-specific infobox that works than one that's ugly, generic, and "for-galochka". I'll try to put something together when I have a moment and announce it on ru-noticeboard for everyone to comment (and they'd better).—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow Metro

Can you please lock the article from edit wars and participate in discussion as well. --Kuban Cossack 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There could be less edits if you could explain why your position is more correct. I see now only your desire to protect own edits. That's happened to reorganisation of metro lines articles, which made them easier to read. But you reverted edits with no explanations. Elk Salmon 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please let me know when you are in agreement so the article can be unprotected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Tawker unprotected article without any questions. I think better to protect it back. Elk Salmon 07:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! Tawker unprotected the article because it's been protected for a month (!). As you undoubtedly know, protected articles are not good for Wikipedia. It would be much better if you (and your opponent(s), of course) could abstain from making any dispute-related edits while consensus is being reached (what's the progress on that, by the way?). This way we wouldn't have to keep the article in a semi-permanently protected condition, allowing other people to work on it as well. If the revert wars resume in full power again, I will, of course, re-protect the article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I have answered on my talk page. --Elk Salmon 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Kaliningrad Oblast

This is apparently the flag of Kaliningrad Oblast -- can you confirm this? FOTW doesn't mention anything, but then again, they haven't got any flag for Tambov yet, and AFAIK the flag in Tambov's article is correct... Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not it, this is. Well, will be. The flag was accepted by the oblast duma last Thursday; however, it will not have official status until the Governor signs the law and the law is published. Shouldn't take too long (unless the governor refuses to sign off). I see someone already added the new flag to the Kaliningrad Oblast article; I have commented it out until the flag is truly official.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! What was the blue-yellow one, then? And any news on flags for Perm Kray, Novgorod Oblast and Pskov Oblast? —Nightstallion (?) 14:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure, but if I remember correctly it is one of the 2005 drafts that had been voted down and declined. As for the Perm/Pskov/Novgorod, I have not heard anything, but I'll re-check the feeds when I return from vacation in about a week and will certainly let you if I find anything of interest.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, yet again. =] —Nightstallion (?) 14:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CYR, no more lacinka

Well I feel that there is no more point to hold on so I made the proposal a policy, I put a note on Portal:Belarus and if, say in 24 hours I recieve no new proposals for re-entering lacinka into Belarusian titles I will begin moving the articles, and for this I will need your help as an admin who can fix redirects. OK? --Kuban Cossack 14:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as there are no objections, it is no problem. Just list redirs that need fixing on my talk page, and I'll take care of them tomorrow.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CrazyRussian's RfA

Hello Ezhiki, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revel Governorate

In Administrative divisions of Russia in 1727-1728 is mentioned "Revel Governorate (Ревельская губерния) was considered subdivided into 1 province (Estland)" On the Dutch wikipedia we currently have a debate about the actual name of this governorate between 1719 and 1783 (at nl:Overleg:Gouvernement Estland). As far as I know (from this website) the name in Russian was Ревельская губерния between 1719 and 1783, then Ревельское наместничество until 1796 and afterwards Эстляндская губерния. However the Estonian wiki doesn't mention Revel Governorate at all (et:Tallinna asehaldurkond). This german pdf-document about Livonia uses the word Estland for this region during this time (and not 'Reval'). Now I was wondering where you obtained the data which is mentioned in the article Administrative divisions of Russia in 1727-1728 (and the other division reform articles of this time referring tot this guberniya). Not that it would change the outcome of the debate, as it is about the Dutch name for this region in this particular time, but because I am curious if the Germans and the Russian state perhaps had a different name for this territory. --Hardscarf 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hardscarf! I was using a great variety of sources to compile the History of the administrative division of Russia series, most of which were unfortunately lost in a hard drive crash about a year ago (which is the main reason why I put further work on this series on hold). I'd have to pretty much re-do all the research to restore the timeline. I do, however, remember that the statement that "Revel Governorate was considered to be subdivided into one province—Estland" comes from Konstantin Arsenyev's 1848 work "Статистические очерки России" (Statistical Sketches of Russia). Here is what it literally says:
Сохраняющаяся въ Государственномъ Архивѣ роспись губернiй и провинцiй 1727 года (Разр. XVI, д. 11) даетъ возможность подробно очертить областное дѣленiе, какъ оно установилось въ началѣ эпохи...
...
IV. Ревельская губернiя: составляетъ одну провинцiю, совпадаетъ съ Эстляндiей.
...
which is roughly translated as:
The list of guberniyas and provinces of 1727, which is kept in the State Archives, makes it possible to describe the regional division as it was established in the beginning of the period...
...
IV. Revel Governorate: makes one province, matches Estland.
...
Note, however, that Arsenyev does not literally say that the one province the Governorate made was called Estland (he merely points that it matches Estland). I tried to mirror this approach when writing the article. I know it sounds vague and ambiguous, but so does the original source. The other source I used—Yury Gotye's 1913 "История областного управления в России от Петра I до Екатерины II" (History of the regional administration in Russia from Peter I to Catherine II)—is just as vague. Gotye provides a list of guberniyas and their provinces as they existed in 1727, but the entry for Revel Governorate simply states 1 province (Estland). The best way to find out the truth, of course, is to get to the mysterious (Разр. XVI, д. 11) of the State Archives Arsenyev mentions, but I have no means to do so. The next best thing is to find Speransky's "Полное собрание законов Российской Империи" (Complete code of laws of the Russian Empire), but I was unable to get access to it either.
As for your other questions—it is correct that Revel Governorate was reorganized into Revel Viceroyalty in 1783, and it is also correct that it was renamed Estland in 1796.
Sorry if it wasn't of as much help as you expected. I lost way too many truly irreplaceable materials to provide a more detailed answer, especially about how the region was called in other countries. Still, feel free to ask me any specific questions you might have—I might be able to answer them.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Dmitry

I would welcome your comments on this page. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astapovo

Do you have some more info about this place (Astapovo)?? It would be great if you can add something more to it. I've created the basic article... It's of special interest as Leo Tolstoy's death place.

:)

Pratheepps 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I moved this article to Lev Tolstoy (settlement), because it was renamed in 1918–1920 and re-wrote the article altogether, adding whatever pieces I was able to find on the web. If I find any more reliable sources, I'll revise the article correspondingly. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It's nice to note the additional details !! :) Pratheepps 05:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BGN/PCGN

Hi Ezhiki,

Thanks for your explanation. My point is that the BGN/PCGN publications are not presented as titles (I see quotes nor italics). Instead, the article provides a listing of BGN/PCGN romanizations of a number of languages. That's why I'd prefer to refer to the languages using their common names. Please also not that Lappish is considered to be offensive. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Benne. The BGN/PCGN publication used to compile the article is listed in the Reference section. While I realize "Lappish" is offensive, it is an unfortunate fact that the publication uses it, so this fact needs at least to be mentioned. So, how about leaving the main text as "Northern Sami" as you proposed and adding a footnote explaining that it is not the name BGN/PCGN use to refer to the language?—Ëzhiki (Igel Hérrisonovich Ïzhakoff) • (yo?); 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Adding a footnote stating that the original publication uses the name Northern Lappish sounds perfectly fine to me! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amurensis

Why Igel Herrisonovich Izhakoff? Who is/was that guy? It's just my curiosity. It's your decision anyway :). KNewman 17:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's me :) See Igel, Hérisson, Ïzhak.—Ëzhiki (Igel Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative centers

So, having already had some words with you on the matter, I thought I'd toss an idea to you. As you're aware, the names of 2nd- and 3rd-level jurisdictions don't necessarily indicate their administrative center, although they often do. Since part of the project I'm working on (which is what led me to comparing the Komi article to the Komi republic web site) involves me digging up this information, do you think it would be useful to incorporate that information? (Like so:)

Lensky (Ленский); administrative center Yarensk (Яренск)

It seems the best feasible way to provide that detail -- one which is sort of necessary for someone to get an idea of where the areas are in many cases. (The best way would be getting the articles for each district up, but that's going to be a herculean effort. In a perfect world, every oblast/krai/republic would have the same level and detail of coverage as every US state already does, and every raion would have the same level of detail as US counties. But I digress...) Anyway, since that information is your baby, let me know what you think. I'm perfectly okay with entering it, although I'm sure you'll wanna keep an eye on it and correct my lousy Russian "spelling". ;) JFMorse 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, JF! Of course, I'd support this any day. It has been my intention to bring the articles on Russian administrative divisions and settlements to the U.S. level of detail all along, but I thought I'd put the "infrastructure" up first (in hopes to lure others interested in the subject, so they have something to start with), and then worry about the finer details later. It's incredible how slow things are moving when one is the only person to work on a subject area. Surely, I could use any help I'm offered :)
I am also curious as to what sources you are going to use. Hopefully it's not the official websites; you've seen how careless and outdated they can be. If you need something more reliable to work with, let me know, I'll gladly send the documentation I have. It will, of course, be in Russian, but since it's in a list format with very little narrative, you should feel comfortable with it in a few days (a little longer if you have to learn how to read Cyrillics first). Please email me through wikimail if you are interested.
One more time, thank you for your interest and willingness to help—I sure much appreciate it!—Ëzhiki (Igel Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Careless, outdated... and encoded so that I can't read them period, in some instances. ;) Definitely willing to help out on this (especially since doing the updates in parallel with my off-wiki map project will be trivial), and I'm all in favor of using more accurate information. JFMorse 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your e-mail's not coming through, but at least know I know you've been trying. ;) I just checked my server, and SpamAssassin hasn't gotten hold of you either, so it looks like it's on your end. :( JFMorse 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Long-winded reply sent to the address you sent from. :) JFMorse 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kursk Oblast

Hello, Ezhiki. I’d like to thank you for your time which you spent for reading and correcting my article. I very appreciate that you valued my work so much:)Lidiab 05:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)lidiab

[edit] Star City, Moscow

I noticed you removed the Category:Cities and towns in Russia. Fine by me, you'll probably know best. Problem is however, that the only category remaining is Category:Human spaceflight, and consequently, no geographical one. Isn't there some workaround, e.g. a Category:Restricted areas in Russia, which could then be put in the geography tree? Errabee 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. We have Category:Closed cities, but it would not apply for the same reason—Star City is not a city; it's a facility. Placing this article directly to Category:Moscow Oblast, however, should solve the problem. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the help! Errabee 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also moved the article to Star City, Russia, because the facility is located outside of Moscow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that's a better name. I've also taken the liberty to move the larger part of the text to Yuri Gagarin Cosmonauts Training Center, where it belongs imo. Errabee 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
That was long overdue. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias

Thanks for your concern. Tobias was actually blocked for disruption (he moved a town page to "Bad (town)"), and for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages. Additionally, he began a systematic campaign of disruption by way of open IPs as soon as he was blocked. So unfortunatly, there's a lot more going on than than just his interaction with you (which honestly, I hadn't noticed). --InShaneee 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. I regret his behavior.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
InShanee, I've just looked at Bad Eisenkappel more closely, and I don't quite understand why it was interpreted as disruption, let alone deleted altogether. It looks like a perfectly correct name to me; definitely a real place. I do agree that placing notes such as you described on other users' pages is not at all good sportsmanship, but it doesn't account for more than a few days worth of a block in my book. Sockpuppeteering is very serious, of course, but if "Bad" Eisenkappel was all he was blocked for, his behavior becomes much more understandable, although, certainly, not justified. Could you be so kind as to provide me with more background details behind this block, please? Am I missing something else that's also important? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll admit I'm not completely familiar with the topic of the article, but I do believe that there's more going on here, especially since his edit summary when creating the article was "fight against admin power abuse. fight against deletionists like [name removed]". And you are right, a week is typically longer than usual for that sort of activity, but when I looked at his block log, I saw this was not his first block for this exact same behavior, which does warrant a longer block. --InShaneee 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] История Сибири

Привет,

вот статья, которую я расширил (изменения). Нужно, чтобы проверили и подкорректировали, не знаю, где спросить. Посмотрел портал Россия - как я понял, там весьма мало смотрят обсуждения. --Ъыь (koo!) 17:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite an expansion! I will make a point to review it when I have a bit more time. Is that factual accuracy you are concerned about, or did you just want me to proofread it? Thanks; great job!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean just proofread. As for maps, this is a map of South Siberia. I'll think about a larger map. --Ъыь (mailbox) 16:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll proofread it, although probably not today. As for the map, I meant an overview map such as the one we already have, only one that would include all Siberia, not just its Russian portion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olonets Raion

Hi, sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a look at Olonets Raion. I got there from Administrative divisions of the Republic of Karelia via the redirect Olonetsky District, Republic of Karelia. Is this just plain incorrect, or does it describe a historically other region? Errabee 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No bother at all, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will probably have to re-do the article altogether; you are right, there are quite a few inaccuracies, especially in the modern section. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary by Alex Bakharev at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen

Your have endorsed the summary by Alex Bakharev at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen which misinforms the community. Alex Bakharev wrote about Russian architecture: "There is no discussion on the talk page, no suggestions on improving the article". In fact there was (and still is) a discussion on the talk page and solution has been proposed. (Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen#Comment_to_the_summary_by_Alex_Bakharev_and_others). I suggest you to withdraw your signature under the summary.--AndriyK 08:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. My endorsement will stay as I agree with the overall points raised in Alex's summary. Please note that an argument about having or not having a certain tag does not fall under the definition of "suggestions on improving the article", although it can certainly be classified as "discussion". Fine semantics such as this, however, are of little importance in the bigger picture considered by this RfC. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:jimfbleak

Thanks for your note. I'd make the following points.

  • I can't remember whether I gave a reason for deletion in the deletion summary, but after Conradi contacted me (by attacking my user page and posting "little jimmy likes deleting" or some such), I posted the following on his talk page (it's still there).
Eisenkappfl is located in Austria is not an article. It does not state whether this is a person, town, building or geographical feature, or where it is in that large country. To discuss whether it should deleted seems pointless, especially as it can hardly have been a major task for you to write one short contentless sentence. jimfbleak 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think I have been uncivil to this user, despite his provocative and offensive manner (and I saw other people's comments about his behaviour, so its not just me).
  • I don't recall blocking this user. I'm certainly not going to self-block (as an AOL user I get blocked as collateral damage often enough without blocking myself).
  • I have, I think, behaved with restraint and civility, certainly compared to Tobis Conradi. I have no intention of apologising to him, since I have been treated uncivilly by him, rather than the other way around. I'm afraid this seems to me another example of the kind of approach that encourages vandals and other malefactors to run riot through Wikipedia.

I've only posted this here, do with it as you will, and thanks for making the effort to resolve this issue. jimfbleak 15:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jim! Sorry for (accidentally) bundling you with everyone; I had no intention to accuse you of anything you did not do. The only complaint I had was that you deleted the article without giving a reason, which is what started the whole mess (which you were mostly uninvolved with). Your explanatory message at Tobias's page is dated after most of the events I described in my summary had already occured. I understand perfectly well why you deleted that stub; I'd probably do the same in your place. Again, the only problem was the lack of edit summary. Tobias did not understand the reason for your deletion, hence his "little Jimmy" remark (which I neither justify nor approve of), and corresponding actions by other admins.
To clarify matters further, of all parties involved you are the only person I will not expect to self-block. Hopefully this resolves the confusion. Feel free to contact me should you have any further questions/comments.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian articles

Thanks a lot for wikifying my Russia-related articles. I am currently working on making pages about the Tver Oblast, especially the area around Kashin and Kalyazin. My ancestors are from that region and I want it to become more well-known. If you can help me out some more in the future, that would be great. --GoOdCoNtEnT 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. If you could announce your articles at Portal:Russia/New article announcements, that'd be of great help; this way I wouldn't have to hunt them down myself, and they could be looked at by other Russian editors as well. If you have anything specific you need help with, feel free to drop me a note any time. Thanks for your contributions and keep up good work!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

When is it a good idea to add a 'See Also' section to a page? When is it not? What is your opinion on 'See Also' sections? --GoOdCoNtEnT 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! While I don't personally think I helped you out all that much, I appreciate the gesture.
Regarding your question—the "see also" section is there mostly for related topics that have not been mentioned in the body of an article. So, if you write about a town in such-and-such district in Tver Oblast, you probably already have inline links to both the article about the district and about Tver Oblast, so including them again in the "see also" is redundant. It as always better to incorporate a link into the body of an article than put it out into the "See also". A case when a "see also" link is acceptable would be when you want to mention an indirectly related topic (again, unless that topic is already addressed in the article). For example, a link to Music of Bashkortostan in the "see also" section of Bashkortostan is acceptable, and a link to Bashkirs is probably not.
Sometimes it is a fine line, but if you just try to avoid inclusion of the most obvious links, it should work well enough.
See also: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also
Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Znamenka

Courtesy notice - I prodded. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your notice. I have removed the prod tag and explained my reasons on the dab's talk page. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Asia

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophes in typography

Привет. У меня возникло разногласие с одиним из участников, ты не мог бы помочь?

Предыстрия такова: я поправил в статье про Уму Турман, ставшей избранной, типографику: заменил дефисы на тире, знаки дюйма — на кавычки (“”) и компьютерный апостроф (') на типографский (’). Через некоторое время участник Downwards откатил мои правки по поводу апострофа. Я написал по поводу этого ему в обсуждение, но мы не очень друг друга поняли и мою последнюю реплику он просто проигнорировал.

Скажи пожалуйста, я в чём-то не прав? Спасибо. — fatal_exception ?! 09:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Привет! Правы (и неправы) вы оба. Согласно WP:MOS#Look of quotation marks and apostrophes, оба стиля являются приемлемыми. Там же, однако, указывается, что "typewriter style" в Википедии используются чаще — именно поэтому Downwards, скорее всего, и исправил апострофы обратно. В общем и целом, исправлять типографику имеет смысл только тогда, когда оба стиля на одной странице используются вперемежку. В противном случае лучше оставить типографику такой, какая она уже есть.
Надеюсь, что моё объяснение было адекватно. Если есть другие вопросы, спрашивай.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Спасибо за ответ. Хотя я искренне удивлен таким положением вещей: в страшном сне не могу представить себе англоязычную книгу с typewriter style :). — fatal_exception ?! 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
На самом деле ничего удивительного здесь нет. В той же части MOS объясняется, что ситуация сложилась таким образом в связи с отсутствием консенсуса. Довольно легко представить, что бо́льшее число людей предпочтёт удобство typewriter стиля геморрою типографики. Я лично предпочёл бы последнее, но вопрос этот обсуждается не часто и, с другой стороны, проще, наверное, было бы запустить для форматирования бота чем заставлять людей вникать в подобные тонкости.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Savyolovo

When editing the Savyolovo article, Picapica did make a few good points. Would it be possible that you could rewrite his section to include them? Thanks. --GoOdCoNtEnT 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you want me to do. Picapica's edit was quite good; all I did was remove the statement about Savyolovo being a community (that is not an established term for Russian settlements), and about it being "ancient" (1901 just doesn't strike me as ancient). I left all his other revisions in place. Was there something I missed? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you reverted the whole edit. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Hello Ezhiki. I just wanted to ask you if you know there is great PD encyclopedia which we should use, at [16]. It's sad that my generation don't know Russian language so I can't help with translating. But do you know someone who can help? I know that User:Mircea on the Czech wiki translated more than 100 {!} articles on Russian lakes and lakes from former Soviet republics. -- Darwinek 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Darwinek! I did know about GSE (although I usually access it through Yandex, but thanks for keeping me in mind and dropping me a note. Just so you know, GSE's PD status is not without controversy, but it is still great for some fact-checking. If you want to find someone who would devote his/her time solely to translation, you might want to check the Russian Portal. I, unfortunately, have my hands full as it is, so I must decline. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Title

Image:WikiThanks.png Thanks a bunch for giving me that warning!!! I'm starting to have enough of this template/userbox war. I copied the template over at my own subpage just in case. Thanks again, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Autonomous Oblast

Ok. Sorry. A Russian friend of mine saw the article and suggested that I fix it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me—I'm always glad to help. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heixiazi

Just started this article, and was wondering if you could check the facts and especially the Russian spelling. Thanks in advance! =) -- ran (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ran! It looks that the most obvious inaccuracies have already been corrected; I corrected some minor things and added Russian accents. The facts also look correct, at least based on what I know, but it'd be great if you could add references and/or sources of your information. All in all—thanks for creating this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway Terminals

Hello, it seems that in addition to revesal of names of Moscow rail terminals you have made, the Template:Moscow Rail Terminals needs to be reverted.... Goudzovski 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, but that actually did not need admin priviliges. Thanks for pointing this out, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Template:Moscow Rail Terminals

Please see Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian instead of initiating a revert war. Circeus 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Circeus. Thanks for pointing me to the policy which I myself mostly wrote, it's nice to know my work was not in vain and that people quote it on occasion :)
The reason for the revert was quite simple, though. WP:RUS indeed says that the "-ий" endings could be romanized as either "-y" or "-iy". The choice is ultimately made by the author of the original text. Changing one variant into another is just impolite as changing British spelling into American.
Please contact me again if you have further questions about this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't sweat it too much with Circeus and check Nixer's recentmost contributions instead. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't we all just love Nixer. I could explain him for the zillionth time that what he does in plain rude, but technically he is not violating anything. As long as he doesn't, I just don't want to waste my time on one letter discrepancy, moving stuff back and forth. In this context, it doesn't make one iota of a difference. Unless his moves interfere with work of other editors (and please let me know if they do), I abstain.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my edits to the Novosibirsk article

While it may be obvious that Novosibirsk is the largest city in Siberia, it's never pointed out in the article and therefore isn't "redundant". Also, it isn't pointed out that the city is Siberia's capital, which I will also be adding to the article. Please, before you go around reverting information in articles think of an actual reason for doing it. I don't care that you're an administrator, this is a blatant misuse of power. There's no justifiable reason to go around getting rid of perfectly accurate information in articles.-User:LaFagotdeParis

Hmm, whatever's happening to WP:AGF these days, it's not looking good. Anyway, back to Novosibirsk. First of all, there is no such thing as the "capital of Siberia". Novosibirsk is the administrative center of Novosibirsk Oblast, as well as of Siberian Federal District, which, of course, should be mentioned. I may be nitpicking, but "Siberia" and "Siberian Federal District" are not the same thing, just as "Russian Far East" and "Far Eastern Federal District" are not the same thing. They match territorially, but the former is a geographic definition, while the latter is purely administrative. Second, "the largest in all of Siberia" is just a poor choice of words (I'm itching to say that you blatantly misuse your power over English words, but I'm afraid you might take it a bit too personally, considering your comment above ;)). Third, if you get a minute to read the Siberia article, you'll see that by different definitions Siberia may or may not include the Russian Far East. If you don't choose the all-inclusive definition, you should probably mention that Novosibirsk is the largest city in both Siberia and RFE, or, better yet, say it's the largest one to the east of the Urals or in the Asian part of the country. When you say "in all of Siberia", you leave readers at a loss, since they would have to guess what exactly you mean by "all of Siberia". Hopefully this is sufficient explanation for you. Please correct the sentence you added while I was writing all this. And, once again, please DO read WP:AGF; I mean no offense, but you seem to need it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for letting me know. I've edited the article accordingly. Good day.-User:LaFagotdeParis
You are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian national naming convention

Ezhiki, I see that you've come across Template:Kirovohrad Oblast one of many Ukrainian subdivision templates that I recently edited or created. Please realize that the transliteration used therein is now in place for all Oblast templates. Perhaps we should discuss this at Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine before we spend time editing around each other. In short, I transliterated the raion names in a modified way because there does not seem to be a consistent standard on Wikipedia. My goal was to make the names easy to read in english. Please let us discuss this further at the talk page. Thank you!--tufkaa 17:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tufkaa! Thanks for contacting me. I was under impression that currently there are no users interested in further developing the infrastructure of the Ukrainian geo-articles. It's good to know I was wrong.
Seeing little interest in maintaining consistency of naming of Ukrainian localities and administrative divisions from others, I was making corrections according to WP:CYR, which is a proposed policy for transliterating languages using Cyrillic script. My line of reasoning was that even though WP:CYR is not yet adopted, it makes little difference which transliteration system to use if nobody else cares anyway. I should also note that current names of Ukrainian locations are often transliterated inconsistently ({{Kirovohrad Oblast}} template was a good example of that), which was another reason for my edits.
Now that I know that some of my assumptions were incorrect (you, obviously, are interested in the topic), I have no problem stopping further "housekeeping" edits. I got involved with Ukrainian locations only because I wanted to complete the series of disambiguation pages for Russian localities sharing the same name. Adding Ukrainian (and, later, Belarusian and possibly other Slavic) settlements to the project was trivial. I generally have no further interest in Ukrainian or other Slavic administrative divisions—I have my hands full with just the Russian ones!
I would, however, appreciate your advise regarding which transliteration system I should preferrably use in future in regards to Ukrainian geo-names. I am sorry if my edits disrupted anything—while I know the Russian administrative structure in and out, I am not so knowledgeable about the modern Ukrainian one, so I pretty much acted on analogies and instincts. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal warning

Just a note to alert you. Chevaline has been the target of a vandal who's purpose seems to be to bully contributors to accept a version of nuclear history that omits any reference to the percieved threat from the Soviet Union, real or imagined. A specific reference to Krushchev and the threats made during the Suez Crisis are the latest target. These were referenced to external sources, but to back up those sources I provided additional references to the Nikita Krushchev page and the Suez Crisis page. He seems to have taken umbrage at this, and given his earlier behaviour these pages may well be his next target. I hope not, but my reading of him as a former elected officer of CND in the 1980's, is that he is still firmly in the category of a 'Friend of Leonid Breshnev'. They were a pain in the neck then, and apparently still are. No names, no finger pointing, but you'll know him if he appears here. Regards. Brian.Burnell 19:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavutych

Ezhiki, actually, could you please fix the Slavutych page that I messed up. Sorry for this. I planned to move Slavutych (city) back to Slavutych, mentioning the other meanings by {{otheruses}}. Slavutych (disambiguation) is already there. But I fail to realize that the move over redirect requires the redirect to refer to the moving page. Or, alternatively, put the dab back, I cannot do it either. Thanks, MapLover 05:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! MapLover 05:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:You gonna love this...

Looks nice, but why only Murmansk? where is all the rest??? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The rest is in the works. JF has just started (Murmask was easy for starters). From what I gather all maps are not going to happen overnight, but they all are going to happen eventually :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Chernenko page

Hi I am new to wikipedia, and the only article that I made my self so far is a small one on Eduard Pleske a russian finance minister during the early twentieth century.

I am currently doing some substantial research into Chernenko and I would like to expand that article, and maybe totally rewrite it. However I noticed that you deleted my edit about Chernenko's exceptional memory, I have plenty of sources but how do I cite them on wikipedia? Just add a reference section?

Also I would probably change the layout of the page as well since it doesnt currently have much room for personal life and foreign travel info on Chernenko.

Thank You—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yev900 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Yev! Thanks for contacting me. All that you'll ever need to know about citing sources in Wikipedia can be found here. It may be a bit confusing to you first, so if you get lost there, please feel free to let me know what sources you used, and I'll add them to the article and format them properly. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vasilevsky FAC

Hi Ezhiki,

Thanks for your support for the Vasilevsky FAC! However, since a huge style hunt is in progress by a maximum of ppl available, can you please take a few minutes to read the article and to correct/point out the problems you might encounter?

Thanks in advance, Graf.

I did actually read the article (I am not the type who'd vote "support" without knowing what it is I am actually supporting :)), but I decided not to make any style changes as it seemed there were enough native speakers willing to proofread the article in and out. Otherwise, the article looked well-referenced to me, answered all of my questions as a reader about who Vasilevsky was and what he did, and was reasonably interesting for a featured article (sure as hell more interesting than Final Fantasy X or Mariah Carey). If there is anything in particular you think I can help with, let me know, but please bear in mind that my knowledge of military history is not very advanced, so I'll be of little help with the factual side of this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you find some things that sound weird or some style quirks, please let me know. :)) Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orenburg

Something weird is happening with this page. Please investigate. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

School project (or whatever that is) is back again, I would guess. I wonder if they are going to pillage articles on Russian cities every semester; it's getting quite tiring. I still have a backlog from previous occurences. I wish they at least answered any inquiries, but they never do, which is a pity. If we could show them how to do things right, they could be very useful. Anyway, I copyedited Orenburg, please feel free to review in case I missed anything.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your account on Slovak wikipedia

Hello Ezhiki! I am from Slovak wikipedia, you can find me there under nick Stibium. The reason why I write to your discussion here, is that I want to ask you what is the purpose of your registering on Slovak wikipedia. Is it adding interwikis? If it is, it would be good to write it on your user page. No offence meant with this comment, it's just some people register on Slovak wikipedia, they are not Slovaks and the do not contribute, only say they can't speak Slovak and that we should contact them on their national wikipedia, and I have no idea why, and I hoped that you would be the one enlightening me on this. (not that I am forbidding you that, I'm actually happy that new people register on our wikipedia, I just sometimes wonder why).

Regards, Stibium

Hi, Stibium! You are correct, my only intent is to add interwikies. Feel free to add a statement to that effect to my user page (in Slovak) if you wish to. Sorry my reason was so boring :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me

Seventeen images of the "Hero of the Soviet Union" barnstar awards commented out for bandwidth reasons.—Ezhiki
I, KPbIC, hereby award you this barnstar (one per each Ezhik) for your excellent template "Hero City". Keep it up!
I think it is trolling by KPbIC (talk • contribs) who seems to be getting radicalized under the influence of certain "fellows", but perhaps that's just me. --Irpen 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This was a great template. Which one would be next? Cities of Soviet Union? Cities of Russian Empire? Or, perhaps, I should start creating "Settlements of Kiev Rus" template? --KPbIC 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Good that at least you indirectly admit that I was right. Now, would you please clean up the offense above after yourself? You may remove the entire section, including my comment, I won't mind. And TfD is really your option rather than harassing the template's author. --Irpen 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Too bad, you have got it wrong. I'd like to congratulate Ezhiki with a nice template, and in the same time, ask him for his view on further development of such templates. --KPbIC 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, KPbIC! First of all, please accept my apologies that you found the template which I created offensive; although your reaction to it is somewhat puzzling to me. From what I remember of my past brief interactions with you, you seemed like a reasonable fellow; definitely not the type who'd start handing out buckets of sarcastic awards before even asking what's going on. Anyway, judging from the discussion on my talk page and above on this one, I think I owe an explanation.

Yesterday, at the Russian notice board, Ghirlandajo asked for community's opinion regarding whether or not a Hero Cities template would be a good idea. It seemed like a relatively useful template to have to me, and as I was the only one who responded, I went ahead and created one. The problem I encountered was that the Hero Cities, as you well know, are located in three different modern countries, and the only suitable title of sufficient commonality I could think about was "Hero Cities of the Soviet Union" (thanks for changing it to "former", by the way, it was an oversight on my part), with further subcategorization into Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. If the "Soviet Union" part irked you, I welcome any suggestions as to what title would be more acceptable.

When I started adding the template to the actual articles, the idea lost some of its appeal. Hero Cities are large cities with rich histories, and although I don't agree that their Hero City status is just a "minor point" as you put it above, having yet another template at the bottom kind of overloads the articles' footers, if only from the aesthetic point of view. Perhaps having just a category would have been sufficient, I don't know. In any case, if you still feel the template is a mistake, please put it on TfD, which, if I may remind you, was an option available to you all along.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll understand if I respectfully decline the award you've given me. To answer your other question, I do not have any further plans for creating similar templates—this one was a one-time deal that turned up unexpectedly. Rest assured, if I ever find myself looking into creating a template along similar lines, I will make sure to request your input before actually creating and implementing it.

Hopefully this closes this incident. Of course, should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome on my talk page. Best of luck to you in your edits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns in Russia

Hello my friend. I just wanted to ask you if I am annoying you by creating such a high number of geo-stubs, that you always greatly expand. I would like to continue with this next week. Today I am going on vacation. - Darwinek 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Darwinek! The answer is no, not really. All Russian cities/towns should have at least substubs written about them, so what you are doing is quite useful. It is also true that those substubs will all have to be expanded sooner or later. I am simply adding information that's readily available, as well as to maintain consistency with already existing stubs. So, don't worry about me being annoyed—I am not :) Thanks for your interest in this area!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kola

Hello, I never presumed that Kola was officially recognized as a suburb of Murmansk. I'm not aware that there is an official definition of suburb, either, and I never claimed that there is. I regard "suburb" as an informal designation. If you think that "satellite" is a more appropriate term, please make necessary changes, although I believe that the current wording is just fine. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought (that you used the term in informal sense). I do believe that "satellite" is more precise, though. A "suburb" in general is a residential district, i.e., a part of town within its administrative boundaries or an administrative entity immediately adjacent to them. Although there is no official definition of a suburb in Russia, even in informal sense it is somewhat misleading when applied to Kola. A "satellite" town is one closely associated with a bigger urban entity, but still administratively separate from it.
My other question was why you removed the bit about Kola being granted town status again in 1965. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says that Kola "was officially classified as a rural settlement between 1926 and 1965" and that it is classified as a town now. Does not it follow from this that its urban status was restored in 1965? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it does, but it's not immediately obvious. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about this. Thanks for taking time to answer.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] О заголовках

Здравствуйте, хотелось-бы узнать, что делать если я создаю скажем статью Dmitriy Puchkov, но хочу чтобы на нее выходили в поиске и по dmitry puchkov, и по Dmitry Puchkow и еще там по какому-нибудь Puchkoff? Если я правильно понял для этого должно быть созданно соответсвующие количество статей с разными названиями и редиректами на главную статью? Или это можно сделать как-то иначе?

Спасибо. P.S. И еще отдельное спасибо за Вашу правку Pole Chudes.

Posse 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, Posse! Вы всё поняли правильно. На всякий случай объясню, как ставить редиректы. Это делается так: основная статья создаётся согласно правилам транслитерации, описанным на WP:RUS, а со всех других вариантов ставятся редиректы. Чтобы создать редирект с, например Dmitry Puchkow, начните под этим заголовком новую статью, и поместите в неё следующее:
#REDIRECT [[Dmitry Puchkov]]
То же самое надо проделать и для всех остальных вариантов. По-другому сделать никак нельзя.
Если людей с одинаковым именем несколько, то в название статей включается отчество, а на варианте без отчества делается disambiguation (см., например, Alexander Volkov).
Если будут ещё вопросы, или если что-то осталось непонятным, дайте мне знать. И добро пожаловать в Википедию! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sviyazhsk

Hi, Wallie! Could you please explain me the reasoning behind this edit of yours? I couldn't figure out what the connection between the village and Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you type in Zoya, it gets redirected to Sviyazhsk. I am assuming that the village is more important to Russians than Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya is, although maybe not in earlier times. However, I was trying to make things simple, and not create a disambig page at this stage over two Zoya. This is some "method in my madness"... Wallie 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems that I failed to notice that it was a redirect from Tatar. Zoya should really be a dab page, not a redirect. I'll see what I can do about this. Thanks, Wallie!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nixer

These articles are now being vandalized by Nixer:

Russian Empire - Reverts without provides. Rejects official sources and does not specify the sources. Refuses to cooperate.

Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation and Ranks of the People's Liberation Army - multi 3RR violation

Please, help to stop his attack and reverts.--Oliversi 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oliversi is a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal Roitr (User:Roitr/sockpuppetry)--Nixer 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal Roitr. Provide your accusations and suspicions. Still even if I am a sockpuppet of Roitr - is do not give you the right to break a rule of wikipedia--Oliversi 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oliversi, if you are going to make exact same edits as Roitr and his sockpuppets, you will be treated as one of them. Nixer was merely enforcing this, so I don't see him breaking any rules (3RR, for example, does not apply to reverting vandalism).
With all that in mind, be you a sockpuppet of Roitr or not, you are still welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. Sticking with Roitr's editing pattern will get you nowhere and will just waste yours and other editors' time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian language

Hello. Do you think some template like {{Arabic}} should be created for Russian language ? - Darwinek 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. It seems kind of redundant, but perhaps there are uses I couldn't think of off the top of my head. You'd probably be better off asking about this at Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abaza

That's okay; other countries have the naming convention to use the comma even if the other places are not cities (see, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities/Article title conventions), and I wasn't aware there were other standards. But if the Russian ones are already standardized there wouldn't be any reason to change them all.

And this is irrelevant, but I saw the last comment, and if Darwinek asks again you can tell him I'm a huge fan of the Arabic template and think there should be one for all non-Roman scripts. Rigadoun 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. As for the template, you might want to add your two cents to Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board, where this proposal is now sitting generating no comments. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google is your friend?

What do you say to this? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I knew you'd ask! Anyway, first of all, Google is not our friend, it's just a tool that can easily be misused (any common typo would collect a respectable number of hits, for example). Second, your googlefight link is to "Bryansk region" vs. "the Bryansk region", which is not the same as Bryansk Oblast ("Bryansk region" can refer to any area around Bryansk, not necessarily to just the oblast). "Bryansk region" can easily take the definite article, when one speaks of a certain (i.e., previously defined) region around Bryansk. Third, look at this :) Fourth, the number of hits returned in both cases is too small to make an accurate judgement. Fifth, I actually happened to ask native speakers about what they think of this issue—you can find the discussion in my archives here—the bottom line is that while using the definite article before the name of a krai/oblast is not entirely incorrect, it sounds archaic. I ain't gonna argue with an English major on that :) And finally, the majority of articles utilizing the similar construct ("in X Oblast") do not use definite articles, so I removed the one in question partially for consistency sake. Hope this answers your questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I just saw you Ghirla's page, and dropped in to say hello. --Bhadani 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why, innit nice of you :) Anything I can help you with?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abaza (town)

Thanks for the clarification as to the city/town status of this (and other towns in Russia). BillC 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, but please don't take this "distinction" too close to heart—it's nothing official, just vaguely defined common sense. The only reason why I even bothered to correct this was for consistency sakes (to match the terminology patterns with those of other cities/towns). Incidentally, if you are interested in what this issue is about, you can read a great deal about it here. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Wikipedia

Don't images take up the majority of the space though? --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to that same page, images alone (without articles) take up 76 Gb. I don't know about the Commons, though; they might as well have a lot more by now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashin map

I have uploaded a map of Kashinsky District to show the location of Kashin. However, the map is in Russian. Can you help me find a map in English? --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Try looking here. The maps there are neither recent nor pretty, but at least they are in public domain.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no Kashin/Tver Oblast/Kashinsky District map available there. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not even as a part of a bigger regional map? Try asking JFMorse then; I know he's got bunches of maps; perhaps he'll be able to help you out. I can probably find you some more Russian maps, but I don't really have anything readily available in English. If I stumble upon anything accidentally, I'll surely let you know, and I'll try looking something up if JF doesn't have what you need.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:DP violation by an admin

...do you know where can I complain about admin rights abuse? All these ArbCom pages are really a bureaucratic mess. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are a bureaucratic mess, but they are the only place where you can officially log a complaint against an admin. You can also make an informal complaint, by posting to either WP:AN/I or to WP:RFC (but not to both at the same time). If neither AN/I nor RFC appeal to you, I can help you with the technical side of the arbitration process. Please note, however, that arbitration cases tend to drag for quite a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Now multiple admins violated. So an RFC on one person is IMO not the right thing, too much work. Can one make a RFC on multiple admin conduct? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I know of no RfC clause that would prevent you from filing an RfC against as many users as you want. It would probably be preferrable that such an RfC is related to a certain dispute, or a series of similar disputes, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Petersburg nbsp tag

As far as I know, there isn't a way to create a non-breaking space without using the tag. My point was that it doesn't seem necessary and clutters up the editing space. If there's a particular reason for putting it there, I didn't think of it. Dbinder (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response! The purpose of the non-breaking space in this particular case is to prevent a situation when "St." remains at the end of one line and "Petersburg" wraps to the next line. It looks very disruptive to a reader when it happens, and, of course, there is no way to predict whether or not it will happen or not. Please note, that WP:MOSNUM, for example, specifically advises to use the non-breaking space between the numbers and the units of measurements. "St. Petersburg", of course, has nothing to do with MOSNUM, but the situation is very similar, and so is the purpose. Considering that the links to St. Petersburg are usually piped ("[[Saint Petersburg|St. Petersburg]]"), it is already confusing enough to a total newbie. More experienced editors, on the other hand, would normally be perfectly aware what a non-breaking space is.
Hopefully I was able to convey my approach. I realize that this is hardly a major issue, but I felt that I should have explained anyway. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons

maybe you like Category:Wikipedians who use userboxes for statistical reasons, I use the template now. I am not a big fan of user boxes, but if it helps in statistics it's good. So I will maybe deploy more in the future. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, thanks. "Statistical reasons" sounds as a great reason for userboxes, but it is fundamentally flawed. Unless all Wikipedians are mandated to use userboxes for "statistical reasons" (an unlikely event), the statistics gathered this way is bound to be mostly, erm, useless. Plus, I am not that excited about a possibility of adding (yet another) bright yellow userbox to my already too bright userpage :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NC (city names) -> settlements

[edit] Bolshakovo

Bolshakovo your review welcome. interwiki ru? improve my english... Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I did what I could. There is no corresponding article in ru-wiki, by the way. Also, what is "Elch lowland"? I couldn't find any reference to it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
de:Elchniederung - dolina. :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Elk Valley (Losinaya Dolina)! Got it. It's a part of the larger Polessk Lowland anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iso 15924

ISO 15924 v ISO 639-3 - Template talk:User cyr, Category talk:User cyr Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heixiazi/Bolshoy Ussuriyskiy

Hi, thought it might be easier for you to look it up... can you check if Heixiazi/Bolshoy Ussuriyskiy is a part of Khabarovsky Krai or the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? Google Earth seems to suggest the JAO, but Google Earth really isn't the most authoritative source. Thanks in advance. -- ran (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ran! It's a part of Khabarovsk Krai, not JAO.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summons

I doubt you'll ever get to encounter this elsewhere, but you might want to add Administrative divisions of Tuva to the list of exceptions. "Sumon" here is correct, "summon" isn't. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the note, and sorry for messing up the article. I've added it to my exceptions. Out of curiosity, do you know why they spell summons differently in Tuva? Cheers, CmdrObot 21:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Commander! Thanks for taking care of it. As a matter of fact, they don't spell summon (a verb) differently in Tuva; the word sumon (a noun with one "m") is simply a transliteration from Russian/Tuvan "сумон" and has no relations to the English verb whatsoever. "Sumon" is a variation of sum, a unit of administrative division. Hope this satisfies your curiosity :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hello. I was just wondering if you would accept if I would nominate you for adminship. Cheers. - Darwinek 13:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't noticed you already are an admin, this is probably because of that heat around. Now I must clean that smashed egg from my head. :). - Darwinek 13:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us :) Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. Interesting project you got here. Seems like it could be useful. Heard a little bit of bad press a while back, but I hope that's all taken care of now. I look forward to spending some time fixing some little things. Cya. --Ali'i 13:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Don't worry about bad press too much—whatever a project is, it is bound to receive bad press at the certain level of maturity. Cheers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow Metro

Remember when I asked you to lock the article, well the dispute continued into an RfC, since you had some involvement, maybe you can give an outside opinion on the matter.--Kuban Cossack 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I might join in a little later. Thanks for keeping me updated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Пара вопросов

Ёжики, я тут работаю над статьёй о Википедии (аспирант типа), хотел бы вам пару вопросов задать вне ВП, например по емайлу, или как вам удобнее. Как можно было бы с вами связаться? Я yuri(at)sims(.)berkeley(.)edu. Qaramazov 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would this be sufficient? abakharev 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[Wikimail is indeed the best way to reach me for this kind of inquiries. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrl

There is an ISO 15924 conform userbox Template:User Cyrl now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Krais of Russia etc

Hi Ëzhiki,

...I have moved Territories of Russia back to Krais of Russia. The issue of renaming krais to territories and oblasts to provinces had been previously considered and the community decided not to make the switch.

Thanks; as I've just noted at WP:CfD, I didn't realise I'd wandered into an area where the consensus is/was to use non-English terms. Apologies!

I'll provide you with links a bit later.

No need, but thanks for offer.

If you still feel the current usage is inadequate, I suggest you list all involved articles at WP:RM.

I would say that if non-English terms are to be used, then for the sake of consistency (and education) the correct non-English plurals should also be used. Hence I'll be requesting moves to Kraia of Russia and Oblasti of Russia respectively – unless these should be Kraya of Russia and Oblasty of Russia or something else...? (Also, subyekty or subyekti or something else...?) Thanks, David Kernow 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, David. I know you said not to bother, but since I already dug two links, here they are, if only for curiosity sake:
These, especially the second, might be very useful for reference, so I'm grateful to have them; thanks.
As for using the non-native plurals, I'd have to disagree. The word "oblast", for example, while comes directly from Russian, can be pluralized as "oblasts". Merriam-Webster (and, by others' accounts, a host of other dictionaries) actually has an entry for this word, and it lists both variants of plural (oblasts and oblasti) as acceptable in English. Surely, "oblasts" sounds more intuitive to native speakers? Plus, it would involve a lot of work to change all instances of "oblasts" to "oblasti", with only a marginal benefit (if any). "Oblast", "krai", and "okrug" are all listed in the English section of my English-Russian-English Oxford dictionary (I don't have other reference handy at the moment, but I can check other dictionaries later), so they must be acceptable in English and subject to English grammar norms as well.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I'm not a crusade for non-English words to use their non-English plurals; it's just my first thought when I come by such mixed instances. I'm more interested in the bigger picture, not least for the sake of this which should soon see more light of day; I've been checking through it as best I can and at present have reached Sri Lanka, though putting Russia and a couple of other more complicated situations to one side. If you have a moment and can scan, spot and amend any errors that must (still) be within, I'd be very grateful (again!). Yours, David 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
PS Re Tobias, yes, he's helped me understand some of the issues involved in national administrative subdivisions (do you think that name describes the topic accurately?) and as with yourself above I'll be asking him to cast his eye over the above.
This is quite interesting; thanks for asking me to review it. Unfortunately, I can't really offer you much input on administrative divisions of countries other than Russia—I'm too narrowly specialized, I'm afraid.
As for the term "national administrative subdivisions", I am kind of uneasy with the "subdivisions" part. I usually prefer just "administrative divisions", although even in case with Russia it's hard to avoid using the term "subdivisions" altogether (Subdivisions of Russia, for example, describes some non-administrative divisions, such as economic regions, as well as administrative ones). I realize, however, that while we had plenty of critics advocating to abandon this term, all of them failed to propose an adequate replacement. I guess we'd just have to wait for an insight :)
Anyway, thanks for your responses and tips. I'm sure we'll eventually bump into each other on another occasion again :) Of course, should you have any questions about Russian administrativia, you are always welcome to contact me—I'll do my best to help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I too am uncertain about "divisions" vs. "subdivisions" but for the time being am using the latter as "division" is itself a translation for a type of (sub)division and thus far I haven't found the same for "subdivision"! Once I've finished working through the table as best I can, however, I'm planning to throw this query open – plus the question of whether or not "(sub)divisions" ought to be qualified in the kinds of articles you mention, e.g. "Administrative (sub)divisions of Russia" vs. the current "Subdivisions in Russia", to allow "Political (sub)divisions" or "Electoral (sub)divisions", etc. First, though, I'm aiming to release the table for general comment and proofreading.
Here are a few more links about Russia's administrative structure...
...I give these to you is because I reviewed the Russia's line in your national administrative subdivisions list and found some subtle inaccuracies which these links should address.
Thank you very much; as mentioned above, I'm only too aware that Russia is one of if not the most complex case as regards (sub)divisions and it was my attempt to start sorting out its entry in the table that led me to make the abortive CfD proposals earlier (yes, forgetting to check for any relevant talk-page history first!). With the links etc you've supplied I feel more confident that I'll find the information I'll need to reach a completed entry, but will let you know if I hit any impasses and/or when I think the entry is complete. Thanks again, David 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hej guys. I think we should work on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country subdivisions) . So we avoid that a next persons comes and want to re-do all the naming. Well he can come, but would be nice if we can give him the reasons why the stuff currently is as it is. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tobias! I agree, although in this case Ëzhiki has supplied me with relevant pointers in lieu of my not remembering to check for past discussion etc. As above, I'm aiming to complete a pass through the National administrative (sub)divisions table before (a) moving it into the encyclopedia for anyone to correct and/or develop; and (b) catching up on the issues of consistent, coherent naming. Hope that's okay for now. Yours, David 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
PS Are you (both) aware of this, which seems to be one example of the task in hand...?
The municipalities dispute does indeed seem to be a bit overblown. I suppose now isn't a good time for me to show up with perpetual Russian overcomplications, is it? :) The thing about Russian municipaities is that while many of them match the territories of the underlying administrative divisions, quite a few are formed on the basis of several administrative divisions. This, in effect, creates a parallel but not identical structure, which serves a different purpose. English Wikipedia at this time does not even mention Russian municipalities, and I bet it's gonna stay that way until I finally write the Russian municipal reform article, which has been on my to-do list for, ahem, ever. As if it weren't enough, not all of the municipalities have yet been formed as the reform is still ongoing. Those that have been formed are routinely challenged in courts. I hope knowing this added another bit to your undoubtedly already bright view on the state of administrative affairs as seen from the other side of the Russian border. :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, to state what I guess you, Tobias and everyone else interested in national (sub)divisions already know, when there are 200+ countries' worth of (sub)divisions to consider at any one moment, something's bound to be unsettled somewhere! I note, for example, that changes are also imminent or underway in Denmark, Portugal, probably DR Congo, etc, etc. Another potential "clashpoint" I imagine you've noticed is between cities, towns, villages and the like as administrative units vs. as physical man-made entities (for want of a better description). As the former, their articles would be "Cities of...", "Towns of...", etc to follow the pattern used by other articles on (sub)divisions; but as the latter, some folk – and perhaps Wikipedia's current conventions? – promote "Cities in...", "Towns in...", etc. I'm confident, though, that it's possible to work toward a consensus that accommodates this and the other loose ends. Yours, David 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mithgol's Urine

Не мог бы ты, как администратор, снять пометку db-empty со статьи Mithgol's Urine, пожалуйста? Пометку поставили, когда там было два предложения, с тех пор её уже расширили. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Это шутка или как? Какая такая моча? Пометку я сниму, но статью, не обессудьте, поставлю на AfD. Не надо, пожалуйста, превращать русский сегмент английской Википедии в аналог свалки на Википедии русской. В чём смысл этой статьи? Неужели этот неологизм уже настолько распространён, что должен быть всем известен? С уважением,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Хм, а по какой причине её удалили? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
CSD A1. И то верно. На AfD у неё шансов вообще ноль, только время переводить.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Но как это нет контекста? Там была ссылка на ленту.ру, например. Потом бы и изображение добавили. Это феномен, его нельзя упускать из виду для энциклопедии. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
А мне, извините, вчера удалось пукать непрерывно в течение двадцати минут — про этот феномен тоже прикажете статью написать? Прессу я вам организую; знакомые журналисты у меня есть. Что касается контекста, спросите у удалявшего админа, что он имел в виду. Если он чего-то недопонял, то статью я вам с радостью вам восстанавлю, но дорога ей всё равно будет на AfD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ну если ты считаешь, что Lenta.ru - это такой ресурс, где можно написать всякий бред с помощью знакомых журналистов, то я в тебе начинаю прямо разочаровываться :( Про пуканье твоё никто не напишет, а про мочу Мицгола - напишут. Мы же не первично пишем статью, а по имеющимся источникам. Можешь проверить в том же яндексе русский запрос "моча мицгола".
Да, пусть большинство найденных источников - блоги. Но ты же не будешь, надеюсь, заявлять, что блоги - это тьфу? После истории с Reuters и подлогом фотографий Ирана? Блоги - это тот же новостной и обозревательный ресурс, действующий, правда, намного оперативнее обычных и даже интернет-СМИ. --Vlad Jaroslavleff 18:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Я вам очень советую изучить процедурный вопрос, в частности Wikipedia:Reliable sources и Wikipedia:Notability. В первой, например, очень хорошо рассказывается именно про блоги и про то, когда их использовать можно, а когда не стоит. В общем и целом вы обнаружите, что требования к источникам в английской википедии значительно отличаются от требований в русской. Ни Мицгол, ни его моча энциклопедического интереса в данный момент не представляют.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Autonomous Oblasts of the Soviet Union

Hey Ezhiki. Thanks for the tips regarding the "Autonomous Oblasts of the Soviet Union" template. I have corrected the mistakes. Tell me what you think. -- Clevelander 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the template now provides the majority of these articles' contents. Time to expand them, don't you think? ;) Anyway, thanks for taking care of that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaroslavleff and Mithgol

Dorogoy Yozhik, nu razve mozhno tak vezhlivo obraschat'sya s trollyami i kormit' ih filet mignon'om? S glubokim uvazheniyem, - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mozhno. I believe in a non-violent approach to troll genocide :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayo

Et tu, Brute? Please, reconsider.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider what? Translating - or asking? - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Translating, of course. It's funny, yes, but hardly encyclopedic. Not a lot more encyclopedic than Mithgol himself, I'd say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adm. divisoins of Moscow: 123/124

It's from the official site of Moscow government: [17]

ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЕ ДЕЛЕНИЕ ГОРОДА Территориальными единицами города Москвы являются районы (123) и административные округа (10), имеющие наименования и границы, закрепленные правовыми актами города Москвы.

About upravas. Uprava is the governing body in raion (e.g. Управа района Измайлово). So there should be bijection between them and raions. --87.251.146.100 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. The "Administrative divisions of..." series of articles is based on the most recent edition of OKATO, so even when an administrative district is abolished, there's bound to be a delay until OKATO (and then the article) is updated. This is to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as well as to maintain consistency among articles on administrative divisions of all Russian federal subjects. I would be willing to accept a Moscow Government document that abolished Kitai-gorod district for an alternative source, but I am having a great deal of trouble locating such a document. The total number of districts on the official website isn't really a good source, as Russian official websites are notorious for their inaccuracy. If you could provide a link to a document dealing with Kitai-gorod, that'd be much appreciated; if not, I'm afraid we'd have to wait for an OKATO update. Best wishes,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Сколь я понял, района Китай-Город не существует уже несколько лет. Во всяком случае, число 123 постоянно с 2002 г. ([18] и далее отчёты по годам). Также район отсутствует на сайте ЦАО [19]. На сайте [20] можно найти упоминание ТЭОС Китай-город (нормативные документы, поиск по словам Китай-город в названии). На сайте ГУВД г. Москвы [21] упоминается ОВД ТОС Китай-город. ru-Wiki пишет (статья Центр Москвы), что К-Г входит в состав р-на Тверской. Видимо, статус ТОС в составе района Тверской и есть текущий статус. Что касается неотменённого кода ОКАТО, видимо, это никому не нужно: [22] просто не упоминает его. Так что ждать его изменений можно очень долго...--87.251.146.121 14:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to reply in English, because this topic might be of interest not to just you and me. Feel free to reply in either Russian or English, depending on which you feel more comfortable with.
Yes, I understand that the wait can be quite long. Some of the errors in OKATO have been there for years—some eventually got corrected, some did not. The problem is, none of the websites you cited above actually says that "Kitai-gorod district was abolished on such and such date"; they simply omit it from the list. As the district covered the area with no permanent residential population to begin with, the omission is quite understandable (especially for tax purposes, or from the municipal (as opposed to the administrative and territorial) divisions point of view), and such omission does not necessarily mean that the district no longer exists. I am still trying to locate a document that would coherently explain what really happened to the district and what its current status is, but so far I've been unsuccessful. When a district is abolished, finding appropriate documentation is usually very easy, but it's not so in this case, which leads me to believe that the situation is more complicated than "the district ceased to exist, period". If you manage to find any applicable document, directly dealing with Kitai-gorod's status (as opposed to just omitting it from some kind of a list), I would appreciate if you share it with me. This is a very weird situation that needs resolution and that really got me intrigued. Thanks for bringing it to light, and let's get to the bottom of this.
By the way, would you consider creating an account here? The benefits are numerous, and it would make it a lot easier to converse with you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that К-Г has never been a raion. It was a territorial unit with a special status (TEOC, Территориальная единица с особым статусом), later territory with a spec. stat. (ТОС, Территория с особым статусом). See [23]. Territory described here mostly belongs to Тверской raion, except of a small "appendix" Знаменка-Крестовоздвиженский-Воздвиженка of Арбат raion (as these raions pictured in my Москва современная. Атлас города. ООО Атлас-принт, 2005). Document mentioned above has many amendments (you can find it on the same server). I think I'll create an account soon and then post it's name for you.--87.251.146.73 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again me. See Закон о территориальном делении города Москвы (Закон № 13-47, от 05.07.95 95-31 and later editions) Постановление Правительства Москвы О РЕОРГАНИЗАЦИИ АДМИНИСТРАЦИИ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНОЙ ЕДИНИЦЫ С ОСОБЫМ СТАТУСОМ "КИТАЙ-ГОРОД" № 479-ПП, от 24.06.03) on the same site [24]. I think that current status of К-Г is the following. It is a territory defined in law (on ТЕОС К-Г, 1996). The Управление К-Г Префектуры ЦАО have some power on this territories. But this territory belongs to raions Арбат and Тверской.--87.251.146.122 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I think this should do it. I won't be removing Kitai-Gorod from the Administrative divisions of Moscow, but I'll decrease the districts' count and add a footnote with the links to the documents you provided. Please let me know if you think that's insufficient.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Image:Luli.jpg]]

Привет! Случилась ерундовая проблема, но нужен систоп чтобы её решить. Я загрузил в своё время поверх файла указанного выше (нечаянно конечно), женщину просящую подаяние. Как её убрать оттуда и перенести в файл с другим именем? И чтобы оба этих файла не удаляли? А то я вроде загрузил первуб версию файла в [[Image:Luli children.jpg]], но их за что-то удалили :). Хотя точно такую же картинку в файле [[Image:Luli.jpg]] не трогали... Не поможешь? --Wiki 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Сорри, отбой, с люлями сам разобрался... :) --Wiki 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Кстати, нет ли человека, готового помочь с Tatar cuisine, которая просто переведена роботом с русского раздела? Тема-то уж больно вкусная. Все татарские названия я потом и сам поправлю, как они пишутся на английском, но вот собственно с кулинарным английским мне вовек не разобраться! --Wiki 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Звиняй, но с кулинарией у меня у самого проблемы :) А уж с этническими кухнями и подавно.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Жаль... :) --Wiki 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Сдал статью на доработку на портал "кулинария"... Кстати, где у нас deletion log? А то кто-то удалил статью про татарского президента, даже не написав мне ничего в обсуждение... Даже не пойму кто.. такая вот проблема..--Wiki 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion log у нас тут. Выбери конкретно "Deletion log" в первом боксе и напиши название статьи в Title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help with Komarovo article

Hey! Thanks a lot for your help and the new template! :) I have grown up in Komarovo and wanted to write about it for a long time. I will probably be adding some of my own pictures to the article a little later... Vlad b 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, thank you for the great job you did translating (I assume) the article from the Russian Wikipedia! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

shouldnt we make a link to Notability at our talk pages? To see how the article gets deleted and recreated? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite following you. What purpose would that serve?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
you see, now it's red again. That's the purpose. I very widely applied concept has no article in WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, but wasn't this stub just a recursive definition, not even up to the dictionary standards? I really don't see how to write something about "notability" that would go beyond a dictionary definition, unless the term is used in some specialized field (Wikipedia usage doesn't fit this per WP:ASR). Britannica does not have an entry for "notability" either, which hints that it's not that easy to write an encyclopedic article about the subject (although possible, as curiosity will attest).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Subdivisions of..."

Hi again Ëzhiki,
Thought you might wish to respond to this query – apologies if this page already on your watchlist. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. While I do indeed have this page on my watchlist, I don't usually follow it too closely. I would have missed your post there had it not been for your note above. I have provided a brief comment on that page; feel free to let me know if you have any questions (I'll make sure to watch the discussion more closely that I used to). Again, thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Thanks for adding your thoughts here; I'm letting some time pass to give Tobias and anyone else the opportunity to respond as well.

Meanwhile, I have returned to the "chestnut" that is (administrative) subdivisions of Russia and read some of the material you commended to me. It's intriguing to note that – so far as I've seen – Russia is the only country on the English Wikipedia not to have some sort of system of English names for its (administrative) subdivisional terms. Furthermore, given the sentiments you reported, this surprises me – coupled with the levels indicated in the rest of the article plus the other Russian subdivision articles, it appears to provide such a system:

  • federalnyye okruga
    • subyekty
      consisting of:
    • oblasti (sing. oblast)}}
    • respubliki
    • avtonomnyye okruga
    • kraia (or kraya)
    • federalnyye goroda
    • avtonomnaya oblast
      • rayony
      • goroda
      • posyolki gorodskogo tipa
        • selsoviet, selsovet
        • ?
        • ?
        • vnutrigorodskoy rayon

voyenny okrug (what level/s?)

military district

* The distinction between "province" (oblast) and "historical province" (провинция) can be made...?

I'm not thinking (or advocating) that every "N Oblast", "M Okrug" etc article is renamed, but that English equivalents along the lines of the above might be given at an overview level. What am I missing or have not understood...? Thanks, David 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS I note some of these translations are already in use in e.g. Federal subjects of Russia.

PPS I also note these (?second-level) transliterations given near the bottom of this page at statoids.com: natsional'nyy rayon; ostrov; pgt [sic!]; gorsovet; Natsional'naya Volost'.

[edit] (The three/four levels of administrative divisions)

Hi, David! Welcome (again) to the immense mess fun that are the Russian subdivisions :)
You mostly got the gist of things, but not quite. Here are the most important points you need to keep in mind:
1. On the federal level, there is really only one type of administrative division—federal subjects. All federal subjects have more less equal status within the Federation, with Republics having somewhat more autonomy than other types of federal subjects, and with Autonomous Okrugs (except Chukotka) simultaneously being federal subjects and parts of other federal subjects. The list of federal subjects is defined by the Constitution of Russia.
2. Federal districts are in effect groups of federal subjects. Each federal district has a representative (envoy) appointed by the President of Russia, who oversees the federal subjects, and whose prime tasks are to ensure the compliance of regional administrations with the federal legislature and to report the political and economic status of the regions back to the President. Federal districts are not a part of the Russian administrative division.
Understood; if the first administrative level is the "federal" level (?federalny) and the second "district" (raion), is there a label for the third...? ("council" level?)'
Not quite. True, the top administrative level is federal (federal government, that is). Next level is that of the federal subjects. Then go districts (raions), and only then selsovets. I usually refer to the last level as "selsovet-level", which is technically correct, but I doubt the term per se is officially established in Russian (Russian legalese has ways of explaining simple things with multi-story bureaucroslang). The only place in official Russian documents that I can think of off the top of my head is the 2002 Census results, where this level was referred to as "rural administrations" (with a footnote describing the most common types, such as selsovets, rural okrugs, etc.). I doubt there is an established term in English, besides the common-sense ones (in which case "selsovet-level", "rural administration level", or "rural council level" should work just fine).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay; informally, "(federal) – subject – district – council" would seem to label the four levels satisfactorily (in English)...? ("Council" rather than "rural" for the fourth level as it appears to contain urban areas...)
Yes, this should work. As for the "rural council", it's in fact always "rural". An urban-type settlement (or even a town) may serve as an administrative center of a selsovet, but it would never be a part of it. By their own nature selsovets only include rural areas (selsovet is short for selsky sovet, where selsky means "rural".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... but if my current understanding of point 4 below is correct, the city districts/okrugs on the "selsovet" (fourth) level are neither "rural" nor necessarily associated with "council"s, so either of the English descriptions "rural level" or "council level" for the fourth (selsovet) level could be misleading...?
True; I didn't think of it. However, let me explain why it is. The "administrative levels" are just a convenient tool to classify the administrative divisions of Russia; it shouldn't be taken too literally. In real life, it does not matter one bit if selsovets and city districts are located on the same level, or on different levels, or on different but equivalent levels of the administrative hierarchy. Taxes, budgeting, local self-government, and other important issues are all different for selsovets and city districts. The only time when it is important to specify the level is for classification. Russian Committee on Statistics, for example, is the agency in charge of publishing and updating the so-called Russian Classification on Objects [of] Administrative Division (OKATO), which lists all administrative units starting with federal subjects all the way down to selsovets. Each administrative unit is assigned an eight-digit code, where the first two digits specify the federal subject, the next three—the district (or equivalent), and the last three—the selsovet (or equivalent); so, for example, Rovnensky Selsovet of Balakhtinsky District of Krasnoyarsk Krai is coded as 04 204 816 (the system is actually more complicated than this, but it should give you the idea). In terms of that document, selsovets and city districts have equal status, but in real life this equivalence is simply of no importance to anybody.
With this in mind, I guess "level 4" or "the bottom level" is the best we can call it. The OKATO document calls them "third level of classification" (they are omitting the federal level, which is only coded within CIS documents). I can't really think of anything better, can you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"The "administrative levels" are just a convenient tool..." – or, as with something as extensive as Russia, a contrivance I'm all too aware may be taken too far; viz. looking for possible shorthand "names" for these abstract levels in addition to their numbering. Per your OKATO info above – and your correction of my level renumbering at Subdivisions of Russia; thank you! – I've now made/restored the subjects as the first level units in the table and similarly promoted the other two levels, moving mention of the federal districts to a footnote.

[edit] (Similarities between federal subjects' subdivision)

3. The administrative division structure of each and every federal subject is not defined on the federal level. It is completely up to the federal subject to decide what that structure is going to be. The only reason why the internal structures of all federal subjects are so similar is because they all date back to the Soviet system. In general, a federal subject is divided into raions (districts), with each raion's administration reporting to the federal subject's administration. Larger cities and towns also tend to be put under direct jurisdiction of the federal subjects; which effectively equals their status with that of the raions. Smaller towns and urban-type settlements (see more on those below) are usually under jurisdiction of the raions on whose territory they are located. Villages are usually grouped into selsovets, which also report back to their raion administration. All that said, it's important to remember that this structure is just an overview—each federal subject is set up differently (compare, for example administrative divisions of Adygea with administrative divisions of the Altai Republic). The criteria defining the status of city/town, for instance, are different in every federal subject.
"The only reason why the internal structures of all federal subjects are so similar is because they all date back..." – now noted; sorry not to realiz/se earlier!

[edit] ("Districts", "municipalities")

4. City districts exist in larger cities. They are located on the same administrative level as selsovets, although, of course, they are not at all the same thing.
Okay; that seems to figure with the above and the table.
I should have written "same administrative level as raions", not selsovets. Must have got distracted. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem; have moved "[city districts]" accordingly (I think!) in the table. What would the transliterated Russian for "city district" and "city districts" be? (Thanks!)
First, I should note that I really shouldn't be writing any sort of comments before I wake up. "Same levels as selsovets" was right to begin with. "Same level as raions" is only true for the federal cities. I'm sorry to create needless work for you. I assure you that I triple-checked my facts before posting this particular comment :)
Anyway, to answer your question—some cities are divided into city districts while others—into city okrugs. There is no real difference between the two, except for the name (not unlike there is not much difference between selsovets and "rural administrations"). "City district" is "(внутри)городской район" ((vnutri)gorodskoy ra[y/i]on); "(внутри)городские районы" ((vnutri)gorodskiye ra[y/i]ony) in "undefined" plural (when the precise number is not specified). "City okrug" is "(внутри)городской округ" ((vnutri)gorodskoy okrug); "(внутри)городские округа" ((vnutri)gorodskiye okruga) in "undefined" plural.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So, you're human as well! <chuckle> If I understand correctly, the only "city districts" on the "district"/raion (third) level are the federal city districts (federalnyye gorodskiye raiony, sing. federalnyye gorodskoy raion...?); other city districts/okrugs are on the selsovet (fourth) level...?
I'm busted, eh? :) Your understanding is correct though. The only thing is that the federal cities' districts are not called federalnyye gorodskiye rayony—see administrative divisions of Moscow and administrative divisions of Saint Petersburg for details.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that Administrative divisions of St. Petersburg uses that word "municipal" in its English descriptions; nonetheless, I've tried to amend the federal cities section of the table entry accordingly, though yet not in (fully-)transliterated Russian. To do so, I'm imagining (via your earlier reply above) that:
  • Moscow's "city administrative district/s" = (vnutri)gorodskoy okrug (sing.) / (vnutri)gorodskiye okruga
  • St. P's "city district/s" = (vnutri)gorodskoy raion (sing.) / (vnutri)gorodskiye raiony
    • Moscow's "district/s" = [(vnutri)gorodskoy]? raion (sing.) / [(vnutri)gorodskiye]? raiony
    • St. P's:
"municipal (?cities and) towns" = X gorod (sing.) / X goroda
"municipal settlements" = ?sing. / X posyolki gorodskogo tipa...?
"municipal districts" = X okrug (sing.) / X okruga
The word "municipal" was chosen by the Saint Petersburg government, not by me. Why that was their choice, I don't know, but perhaps it was to create more apparent parallels between the administrative units and the municipalities (the borders of which match precisely).
As for the equivalencies, you got them exactly right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Great – perhaps there will be a first version of the table after all! <chuckle> Two follow-on queries, however: (1) If "municipal" is the word used by St. Petersburg, what is its Russian version X above; and (2) I also meant to confirm what the "vnutri" prefixes mean – "administrative"...? (I don't reckon so...)
...For the time being, am using "municipalnye" for "муниципальные" and "obrazovaniya posyolki" for "образования посёлки". I'm assuming these are undefined plural. If all this correct (!) I'd appreciate the singular forms rather than push my luck with Cyrillic even further – thanks, David 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[resetting indentation]

Munitsipalnyye would be a better transliteration for "муниципальные" (as per WP:RUS, as well as for consistency with other transliterations already used in the table). This is indeed "undefined plural" (I wish I knew the precise grammatical term); masculine singular is "муниципальный" (munitsipalny). "Obrazovaniya posyolki" is completely incorrect. "Munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya—posyolki" is literally translated as "municipal entities—settlements", and "obrazovaniya posyolki" literally means "entities settlements", which, of course, makes no sense at all (I understand that you don't speak Russian, so the mistake is perfectly understandable; plus, I should have replied sooner so you wouldn't have to play the exciting game of Cyrillic roulette :)). The singular form for "municipal settlements" is "муниципальное образование — посёлок" (munitsipalnoye obrazovaniye—posyolok). To answer the rest of your questions: "vnutri-" means "intra-" (lit. "inside"), but is usually omitted during translation (I've never seen "intracity districts" applied to Russian cities). Also the term "(vnutri)gorodskiye" is not officially applied to the administrative okrugs of Moscow and to the districts of St. Petersburg, although it can, of course, be used to describe what they are. I would suggest to remove this term from the federal cities' line of the table altogether. Same goes for the districts of Moscow (they are simply "rayony", not "vnutrigorodskiye rayony").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem re the few hours before your latest – for which thanks – just keeping you entertained updated as regards changes. The table now sports "okruga" and "raiony" for Moscow's divisions; and "raiony" and "munitsipalnyye okruga"/"mun(itsipalnyye) obrazovaniya"/"munitsipalnyye goroda" for St. Petersburg, each with an extra footnote. I hope this might mean the Russian entry is ready for debut! Yours, David. Replies at this indentation at 00:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
PS re a possible English distinction between "okrug" and "raion", how about "circle" and "district"...?
PPS Would an amendment of the Russian in Administrative divisions of Saint Petersburg's infobox be in order, viz. to "муниципальные города" and "муниципальные посёлки" (i.e. removing the seemingly misleading "образования"); and removing "административные" from Administrative divisions of Moscow's infobox, replacing "city administrative okrugs" with "okrugs" ("circles"!)...?
I have reviewed the table (or, better, "The Table"), and made some minor corrections. The Russian line is ready to be published. Please review and let me know if anything is still unclear.
Thank you – I think this means the first version of "The Table" <cue music effect> is virtually ready for debut! I've abbreviated the longer names to avoid wraparound, placing their unabbreviated versions in the footnotes. I've also replaced the &mdash;s with colons (see below); hope this acceptable. Thanks too for your comments around the incorrect footnotes; I immediately realised I'd mistakenly duplicated one for another, etc. I think (hope) they are now correct.
Re P.S.: "circle" conveys the meaning somewhat (although the Russian word to describe the circle proper is not "okrug", and okrugs are not really circular), but it is not a term I saw used anywhere. Like I previously said, we need to use the English terminology that has already been established elsewhere; we cannot invent new terms, and this one seems to be a quite radical invention. Unfortunately, the best of the most common ways to refer to Russian okrugs are "district" and "okrug", the former being preferrable, but creating numerous ambiguities in a project with the scope of Wikipedia ("districts of XXX autonomous district" is a good example). I wish there were another English term for "okrug" that we could use; unfortunately, there isn't one (I scoured mounds of literature in search of one, but to no avail).
Yes; 'twas just another passing thought. Ironically, however – for those even more interested in corresponding English terms – I think the "administrativnyye" and "munitsipalnyye" (and, at the subject level, "avtonomnyy") together serve to disambiguate the various okruga and raiony...
Re P.P.S.: amending the infobox is not preferrable, because the Russian terms used there are actually the ones used in official documents. Simplified terms may be easier to comprehend, but they will not be entirely accurate. I am not a big fan of "entities" myself, but Russian bureaucracy is very fond of using overgeneric words where a simple definition would suffice. Same goes for Moscow—the okrugs there are "administrative", not just "okrugs". Sorry!
No problem, per the above; I think, however, that the linewraps in the St. Petersburg infobox might mislead someone else not conversant in Russian (but still intrigued by it). Would I be creating an error if I reformatted these as "муниципальные образования: города", "муниципальные образования: посёлки" and "муниципальные образования: (муниципальные) округа"...?
No meaning is going to be lost if we are to replace m-dashes with semicolons, but technically it is incorrect to use semicolons in Russian in that particular construct. These are really fine points of Russian grammar, though, which many native speakers would easily screw up (me not being an exception). Official designations use m-dashes, so I guess we'd better stick to that if we are to call ourselves encyclopedia-builders and not hopeless amateurs :) That said, if you have other suggestions on how to improve the layout of the infobox (or of the whole article), go right ahead. I know perfectly well that the current layout sucks, but am unable to come up with anything better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I have a question about what you are planning to do about all those plurals. 10+ munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya is simply incorrect in Russian (it should be 10+ munitsipalnykh obrazovaniy). I can certainly correct these for you, but perhaps writing munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya: 10 would be a better solution? People interested in The Table from the content point of view are unlikely to be interested in the finer points of Russian grammar, but leaving incorrect grammar doesn't sound like a good idea either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; my pattern is plurals for "The Table" and singulars for (if I may coin a highly-original term) "The List". Rather than ask you to trawl your way through the wikicode again – and also as I'm more likely to recall something of them – I think a little list/table of the relevant plural and singular transliterations of Moscow and St. P's types of divisions should enable me to update both Table and List – thanks!
Nearly there, David 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll put this list on your talk page as to not overload this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ("Non-administrative" divisions)

5. Military okrugs are not a part of the administrative division. They are set up separately. Same goes for economic regions, zones, and macrozones, which are used for economic and statistical purposes only.
6. Speaking of those types of divisions, they are exactly the reason why you can't rename Subdivisions of Russia to "Administrative subdivisions of Russia"—the article covers all types of subdivisions, not just administrative ones.
The administrative subdivisions seem to be prevalent; perhaps create a separate article Administrative subdivisions of Russia linked to the remaining Non-administrative subdivisions of Russia (to which Military districts of Russia etc redirected, at least for time being)...?
This proposal makes sense to me in general, except that I really dislike the title "Non-administrative (sub)divisions of Russia". Additionally, I don't believe the division of Russian (pardon the pun) divisions into "administrative" and "non-administrative" is established in English academic works, so the title may border on original research. The least we can do, of course, is to raise this question at Talk:Subdivisions of Russia and let the Russians know. I can pretty much guarantee though that apart from me and Tobias not many people would show up :)
"Non-administrative subdivisions of Russia": Yes, I'm not exactly enamoured of it either, so in lieu of it I guess "X subdivisions of Russia" articles for all other types of subdivision would need to sit beside it (Military subdivisions of Russia, Economic subdivisions of Russia, etc). Meanwhile, I see the Administrative subdivisions of Russia article being, in effect, a disambiguation page linking to Historical administrative subdivisions of Russia and Contemporary administrative subdivisions of Russia. (Perhaps the military/economic/etc subdivision articles might also need historical and contemporary "subarticles"...? (Plus, therefore – not seriously – Subdivisions of articles on subdivisions of Russia...?...!))
Re raising this kind of proposal at Talk:Subdivisions of Russia and the portal, any advice on an effective way to proceed...? (Thanks!)
The original idea was to turn the Subdivisions of Russia into a generalized overview without excessive details and lists, but with links to the main articles. The easiest thing to do is probably to organize existing contents under two main headers—"Administrative" and "non-administrative" divisions, and put the subsections within them. I think "Non-administrative divisions of Russia" (for the lack of better term) works a lot better as a section title than as a title of a separate article. The historical and contemporary aspects can then be addressed via further subsections. I'm not sure if it's going to be any less confusing than a spider net of articles and disambigs pointing to each other, but we can at least give it a try (it doesn't look terribly difficult and does not require too many changes to the existing scheme), and if it doesn't work, we can always try dedicated disambigs. What do you think? If we try this first, there is no need to worry about informing all potentially interested parties—the changes are not going to be all that radical, and those who are genuinely interested are bound to notice the changes through their watchlists.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; shall I give it a go, so you may then notice the mistakes/misunderstandings a "general encyclopedia user" (layman) might bring, or perhaps you'd prefer to reorganiz/se it first, followed by comments from said layman (and those watching)...?
Go ahead, I'll correct whatever wrongs I spot. You'll probably get a better overall understanding of the system via a hands-on experience, and I'll make sure no harm is done in the process.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will do so anon.
But why anon?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for ambiguity; I meant "anon" as in "soon". Make that "soonish" now!

[edit] ("Urban-type", "municipal")

7. Posyolki gorodskogo tipa (pgt) is best translated as urban-type settlements, not as "urban settlements". The former is the specific term to define pgt; the latter is the term used to describe cities/towns and urban-type settlements as a group. "Municipalities" is an especially poor choice (see more on that below).
Yes, given point 10 below, "municipality" looks as if it'll need to be reserved! Meanwhile, however, "urban-type settlement" seems cumbersome; are "borough" or (perhaps less likely) "township" possibilities...?
Problem is, we can't just pick up any term that sounds remotely suitable. All of the English terms currently used to describe Russian administrative divisions are more or less commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Sometimes those terms may not be the most common, but we use them here to avoid ambiguity and conflicts with other similar terms (like I said, this is a global project; we need to be careful). Outside of Wikipedia, pgts are referred to as "(small) towns", "townlets", "settlements", "(large) villages", "urban villages", "urban-type communities", "urban-type settlements", "urban settlements", and "townships". I've never seen a pgt called a "borough". "Township" might have been my distant second choice, but I actually had a pretty long discussion with Ukrainians (I know you've been looking for more ridiculously long discussions to read on this subject, hehe :))), where, among many other things, I explained why "urban-type settlement" works better than "township" (in brief—the former is mostly FSU-specific while still being an English term, and the latter is not very common and primarily means other things—"oblast" wouldn't be your first choice when translating the English word "province", just as "pgt" wouldn't be your first choice when translating the English word "township"). All in all, the consensus was in favor of using the term "urban-type settlement", although as you may see it was not overwhelming (Ukrainians originally preferred "town").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood – as with "Non-administrative subdivisions" above, I'm not convinced by either "borough" or "township"; I was wondering what you'd make of them. There are other countries with subdivisions whose English version is less than straightforward, so "urban-type settlement" isn't alone.
Yeah, about that—what other countries pose difficulties similar to Russia? I've always wondered about that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You should find some – hopefully most, if not all – among the footnotes to the table and here.
OK, I'll take a look. It's just that there are too many footnotes there for me to find my bearings easily :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"municipal townships", "separate towns", "urban communities", "metropolitan municipalities", "communal sections", "district municipalities", "city municipalities", "urban townships" etc – think of any combination and it's likely to've been used! (Perhaps the most self-redundant/desperate/abstruse I've seen is "communal communes" – yes, apparently it exists!)
10. None of the English Wikipedia articles dealing with Russian administrative divisions takes into consideration the ongoing municipal reform. The purpose of the reform is to guarantee the right to the local self-government (as defined by the Constitution) and to establish corresponding organs to provide means to excersise said self-government. The reform's goal is to establish a set of municipalities on the territory of the Russian Federation. The municipalities are formed on the basis of existing administrative units, and will eventually replace them. The terminology used to define municipal units, however, is different from that used to define administrative divisions, with the term "municipality" playing a major role (which is why it is such a poor choice to describe any administrative divisions).
Now understood per reply to point 7 above; thanks for insight.

[edit] (Third administrative level, etc)

8. "Selsov(i)et" is usually translated as "rural district/council", but it extremely hard to translate in the bigger scheme of things. There are over a dozen different names used by different federal subjects to name their selsovet-level administrative units.
If "selsovi/et" is an appropriate Russian umbrella term, "rural district" seems an appropriate English equivalent – so long as the 'umbrella' nature of "selsovi/et" made evident...?
It's not really an umbrella term ("rural administration" is used more in the generic sense), it's just the most common name for this type of administrative division (there are more "selsovets" than there are other same-level units called by all other names combined). Either "rural administration" or "rural district" (and possibly other variants) should work fine as an explanatory translation, as long as they are used consistently and an explanation is made for what they really are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood (and as suspected); I'll try to keep this in mind. Subdivisions of Russia#Lower level divisions, however, appears to list "Towns and urban/rural settlements under the jurisdiction of the district"; "City/town districts" (conflicts with point 4 above?); and "Urban settlements districts [sic]" as separate from selsoviets; is this correct...? If so, I'd be grateful to know the transliterations for these phrases; thanks! Also, having just revisited Subdivisions of Russia, I see it treats the "subject" level rather than the federal districts as the first level of subdivisions (hence the "district" level as the second and the "council" level as the third); suggest this is amended according to point 2 above...?
Thanks for making me to finally re-read Subdivisions of Russia. I've just copyedited it, hopefully getting rid of the remnants of non-standard terminology, inconsistencies, and plain old errors. The "Translation" table probably needs to be re-written—if I remember correctly Tobias snatched it from my worksheet long before it was usable. Now it's prettily formatted, but still a mix of all kinds of related and unrelated things.
To address your questions:
1. Federal subjects may have some cities/towns and urban-type settlements under their direct jurisdiction, and have other towns and urban-type settlements under the jurisdiction of the raions. This is not at all uncommon.
Okay; this seems to confirm my latest query at point 4 above ("federal city districts" are "district"/raion level; other "city districts" are selsovet level);
2. Given how the difference between a city and a town is defined here, there is no such thing as "town district". Only cities with population well over 100K are divided into districts/okrugs. As for the level of city districts, I corrected the point 4 above. Again, sorry for the confusion!
So, hope the above is still correct;
It is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. "Urban settlement districts" were added by... (drum roll, please) ...me. It was in 2004, and I honestly have no idea what I was thinking back then. Urban-type settlements are never divided into districts; they are just too small. Since back then I wasn't sure what English terminology to use and, of course, had no developed infrastructure such as we have now, it's possible that I was thinking of microdistricts, inventing a new English term along the way. Still, microdistricts do not belong to level 3 of Russian administrative divisions, so I removed this entry for good. What an embarassment! If there were only one thing I'd like to thank you for, it'd be helping me keep myself in check, lose some arrogance, and re-visit high-profile articles on administrative divisions every once in a while!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of use to us both!
...I've now tweaked the table per my current understanding, to (continue to) indicate to you what may still be amiss. (I've kept the "autonomous okrugs" in the second ("subject") level to reflect their ascribed status; or is that misleading...?)
I've also amended the level numbering in "Subdivisions of Russia"; please revert/correct if necessary. Thanks for all! David; replies at this indentation all at 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I made the corrections to Subdivisions of Russia. The "federal level" is that of the Federation (federal government), not that of the federal districts. Federal districts are not in fact a part of the administrative structure, although their murky status makes it hard to classify what kind of (sub)divisions they are.
As for the table, the entry on Russia it's still not entirely correct. Federal districts must go, because they are not part of administrative structure (the Russian Federation is not divided into federal districts, which in turn are divided into federal subjects; the Russian Federation is divided into federal subjects, which, in turn, are grouped into federal districts, economic regions, etc.). Also, I don't think I mentioned this before, but some cities/towns and urban-type settlements (closed ones, for the most part) are under direct jurisdiction of the federal government. This kind of puts them on the same level as federal subjects (from the classification point of view), but they certainly do not have the status equal to those of federal subjects. I am not sure how you could incorporate this into the table, if you choose to do so. Another quirk to brighten your day is that selsovets may be under jurisdiction of pretty much anything. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of closed settlements. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of district-level cities and those under jurisdiction of those cities' districts. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of the "bottom level" cities/towns and urban-type settlements. I probably forgot some, too. This is, as you might have guessed, due to the fact that the administrative and territorial structure is not mandated federally, but is decided locally at the federal subject level. Again, I don't know if you'd want to overcomplicate your table with such fine details, but I feel that you should be aware of them. If specific examples are going to be easier for you to understand all this, please let me know, I'll gladly provide you with some.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the above: as already mentioned above, the federal districts are now "footnoted" and subjects et al thereby promoted. Meanwhile, if those cities/towns/pgt under direct federal jurisdiction aren't regarded in Russia as equivalent to subjects (which, scale-wise, would seem to make sense) then I'd leave them as level 2. (I suppose a footnote clarifying this jurisdiction could be added, but is probably too much detail for the table.) Similarly as regards the selsovets, i.e. left at level 3. If all okay, the table then indicates that there are no fourth-level or smaller subdivisions; does that tally...?
My continued thanks for all your help! David. Replies at this indentation all at 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
With the structure set up that way, there would indeed be no level four divisions. Selsovets can be decomposed into villages, and cities/towns/urban-type settlements—into microdistricts, but neither can be seen as separate administrative units (there is no "village government" for each village, and microdistricts are an urban planning concept, not the administrative one). So, the table should be fine by now as far as the Russian entry goes. Just in case, I'll take a fresh look at it by the end of this week and let you know if I spot anything still not entirely accurate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I feel by then it should be as ready for its debut as it might ever be. Yours, David. Replies at this indentation at 04:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
PS Hope you enjoyed your Labor Day weekend!
I did, thank you. Also, sorry for the delay with the response; I was jumping from one task onto another yesterday, and never got to post a response to your municipal questions above. Let me know if there is anything else that needs clarification. I'm planning to review the table's entry on Russia tomorrow if nothing interferes. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Oblast, "province")

9. Translating "oblast" as "province" is fine until you put things into historical perspective. The Russian word for "province" is провинция (provintsiya)—term used to describe both historical Russian provinces and modern and historical provinces of foreign countries. "Oblast" is a newer term, meaning essentially the same thing as "province", but... it's a different word. Provinces and oblasts co-existed in the 18th century Russia, which I am sure you are glad to hear, as it makes your work so much easier. Kidding... :)
Yes, per here!
Hmm, I didn't realize I had previously explained it in such detail.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for your reference if/when the next David Kernow rolls by...!!
Hehe, next time I'll let you two enlighten each other instead of wasting my precious time :)) Kidding, of course :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Distinguishing between contemporary and historical uses)

11. All in all, the existing terminology scheme seems to be the best solution that allows to look at Russian subdivisions from both historical and modern perspective. I did my best to select adequate terms for each administrative entitiy, avoiding possible conflicts (although some, such as "okrug"/"district" are so broad that the collisions of meaning are unavoidable). Term translations are extremely useful when one needs to explain the meaning. Explaining that "oblast is pretty much the same as province" is fine, but using the term "province" instead of "oblast" everywhere will lead to many problems. Other publications often select other terms to describe the same phenomena, or even resort to simple letter-to-letter transliteration (pgt being a good example). It's important to remember, however, that Wikipedia is different from most of those publications in its scope. If you write a book on modern administrative divisions of Russia, you are perfectly safe to talk about "provinces" of Russia, and to replace every instance of "okrug" with "district". Such approach, however, will eventually fail miserably in the global, all-encompassing project which is Wikipedia.
"All in all, the existing terminology scheme seems to be the best solution that allows to look at Russian subdivisions from both historical and modern perspective..." – Perhaps this is where progress lies; per the name for this list, my intention is to try to catalog/ue current subdivisional terms. (Hence I realise I ought to rename the table to "Current national administrative subdivisions by country" – !) As regards Russia – and perhaps other relatively complex cases – how about a general article that distinguishes between current and historical uses, either delineating both itself or linking to "[Current/Contemporary] [administrative/etc] subdivisions of C" and "Historical [administrative/etc] subdivisions of C"...? (Vodka, anyone?)
Vodka it is :) You know, long ago I tried to catalog just Russian terms (the historical records are available), and found out that actually going through each federal subject one by one from scratch and resolving the ambiguities and inconsistencies as they arise worked a lot better for me (although, of course, it required extra work). Thus, seeing how much progress you made on a much larger scale in a relatively short period of time is nothing short of a miracle to me. This should definitely be published as a separate article once you put the finishing touches.
Worry not, it's my intention to move it into the encyclopedia once I've finished making an effort to iron out inconsistencies etc with the aid of patient folk such as yourself. There will be plenty of queries, errors, missing local names for terms etc needing people's attention!
As for a general article that distinguishes between current and historical uses, I'm afraid I can't help you at this time; not in regards to Russia, anyway. I started work in that direction with the History of the administrative division of Russia series, but then I became quite busy in real life (the one outside of Wikipedia, you know? :)), and to top it all off I lost many invaluable and irreplaceable reference materials in a hard drive crash (me being a moron about backup being the main reason). When I returned, I decided to start from the other end of the chronological spectrum, finishing modern administrative divisions first and then maybe working backwards from then on. So, all I can offer now is my availability to answering specific questions you might have. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My commiserations re the wretched hard drive (yes, so easy to type...) but more my thanks for your picking it all up again; "all" you can offer me is proving a great deal!
Yours, David. Replies at this indentation all at 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the commiserations, bit since it happened a while ago, I'm quite fine now :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Please let me know if I missed anything. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm further enlightened, for which I continue to be grateful and note the effort you are making in my direction; thank you. I don't think you've missed anything – but then I'm not sure I'd notice!
Best wishes, David 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, always glad to help. As you might have noticed, the topic interests me quite a bit, so an opportunity to talk (at lengths) with other interested people is no effort on my part. :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transferred from User talk:David Kernow#Subdivisions of...

David, I'm sorry, but I give up on trying to incorporate inline comments into inline comments on two different talk pages :) I have provided my (still inline) comments at my talk, however. Feel free to start a new section instead of tinkering with indentation if it's going to be easier for you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to treat the discussion as unfolding on your talk page as the original, copying it [to my talk page] as it proceeds merely for my own record. Hope that'll be okay. David 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll just keep it here then. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I probably won't be around much until after the Labor Day. I will more than likely be able to read your responses, but please don't expect a prompt reply—I'm planning on a long weekend of joy and relaxation, and writing (hopefully!) coherent and detailed explanations takes effort :)) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm planning on a long weekend of joy and relaxation..." – I think you might've earned it! Hope you enjoy. Yours, David 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re #Plurals

David, as you requested, here is the table of the singular and plural forms of the names of admininistrative divisions of Russia...

This is great! – and not a little work, so maybe it can find life beyond my (soon-to-be-archived) talk page...? I don't think I'll use all the variations (yes, I had no idea Russian had such a – probably very useful – variety of plural forms) but hope I've used and confirmed the appropriate ones in The Table. I'm planning to move The Table et al into the main encyclopedia sometime tomorrow, at which point I'll also take a copy of all the above for my own (talk-page archive) reference. Thank you for all your mentoring work! Best wishes, David Kernow 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I don't think the list I made would be of any use to anyone else—it is basically an excerpt from a dictionary; anybody with basic knowledge of Russian would be able to compile one. And it only took fifteen minutes to make, so no worries there.
Best of luck with, erm, The Introduction of The Table into the Main Namespace :) If your next project is going to be related to Russia even remotely, you are more than welcome to ask me whatever questions you might have then. It was a great pleasure working with you, and I am looking forward to more! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If I ever reach it, I have Subdivisions of Russia on my list per above; so you might see some action there, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, more thanks for your celebration here – my own immediate backlog seems to've swelled so much, I wonder if I'll ever reach anything administrative! Yours, David 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
PS I've now archived all your useful information above, in case you were waiting to do the same.

[edit] Belarusian Orthography Revision of 1959

Could you please support our request in here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (Belarusian - Orthography Revision of 1959). Thank you! -- 82.209.xx.xx 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who speaks no Belarusian whatsoever, I don't really feel confident about voting on something as sensitive as this. Thanks for letting me know anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cats for deletion

need your help at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

pschemp just set up something for deletion without talking. Category:User Cyrl-N is heavily populated. But proably all the people in this cat are not aware of the deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure how I can help—I see it was re-listed to comply with the procedures, so it's really up to the community now. The topic honestly doesn't fascinate me all that much. I don't really have a strong opinion about this, although the structure seems a bit too redundant and ambiguous to be useful. Is there no better way to classify these users? For example, looking at Cyrillic script, I am having hard time trying to determine where I would fall—Cyrillics is native to me, but it would be misleading to announce that I have "full understanding" of it (Cyrillic script is not limited to just the letters of the Russian alphabet), but cyrl-N is located higher in the hierarchy than cyrl-5, which assumes better understanding. Any suggestions?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey man, it's a year since I first edited Wikipedia!

Whew! --tyomitch 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, congratulations and all, but I don't believe we've ever met or edited anything together? In any case, hope you stay with us for many more years to come :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Да нет, я просто решил, что круглая дата — отличный повод для знакомства :-) --tyomitch 14:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ну раз так :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

C прошедшим и спасибо за приветствие. Sredni vashtar 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re "Just so you know..."

Just so you know, David, I also was going to suggest...

I've taken the plunge – thanks for your support even before I finished putting my trunks on! Chuckle, David 04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

...Thank you for your commendation! Shiny, David 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's true :) You are welcome, and best of luck to you with the rest of your run. It's going pretty good so far!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Alexander Soloviev

Could you please comment? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just did. Thanks for the note.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hauke

Hi, Conrad! Regarding this, could you, please, refer me to the appropriate page? I am having trouble locating the RFCU you mentioned. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tobias_Conradi and particularly this edit where Pschemp acknowledged that they were separate individuals and this where Essjay closed the request with the conclusion that was the case. Pschemp has subsequently argued that 'maybe they really ARE sockpuppets', but if she wanted to make such a case she should have pressed for the checkuser to be fully reviewed rather than saying there that they weren't sockpuppets... and then turning around and saying 'yes they are' after short-circuiting the process for determining that. --CBD 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That RFCU, eh? I was under impression there was another one. Since there isn't, and the results of this one are pretty clear, I'll be unblocking both accounts—there is no good reason to permablock two innocent individuals, although I very much doubt they are going to return to editing after such a nice welcome we gave them. Thanks, Conrad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tsarskoye Selo

Could you suggest something to prevent such disruptions in the future? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used to think that the Pushkin (town)/Tsarskoye Selo separation was already sufficiently cross-referenced, but apparently I was wrong. My suggestion would be to further improve the cross-reference. Perhaps if we put a dablink at the top of Tsarskoye Selo directing the readers to Pushkin (town) "for the article on the modern town", and then place a (very brief) History section in Pushkin (town) with the "{{Main|...}} link leading to Tsarskoye Selo, that would make things more obvious. What would you say to that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasnaya Polyana

Hello, Ezhiki! Do you feel there is a need for a separate Yasnaya Polyana (disambiguation)? IMO, Yasnaya Polyana would be best served with a disclaimer link to Yasnaya Polyana, Kaliningrad Oblast at the top. Having a separate disambiguation page to list those two articles and the vague "Yasnaya Polyana, name of a number of other rural settlements in Russia" seems unncessary to me. What do you think? Olessi 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. The vague "number of other rural settlements" was in fact added by me. I am currently working on cross-linking/disambiguating the names of Russian districts, cities/towns, and urban-type settlements, so they explicitly link to where they should be located, even if an article does not exist yet. Eventually, I am planning to do the same for all Russian rural settlements (considering that each and every U.S. town, no matter how minor, has an article, I don't see why that shouldn't be done for Russian villages as well). This vague statement is a flag for me to look this name up in case I need to return to this article (usually when a settlement with of the same name is promoted/demoted); if it bothers you, I can certainly expand it to say what those rural settlements actually are :)
What's more, "Yasnaya Polyana" has other meanings not currently mentioned on the dab page. It is used as a trademark, as a name of entities other than settlements, etc, etc. There is a potential to expand the disambiguation page beyond the three entries currently there.
Please let me know if this answer satisfies you, or if you have any further comments/suggestions. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind expanding the disambiguation page if you have time? Right now the Kal.Obl. settlement seems "buried" behind a currently bare-bones (to me, at least) disambiguation page. Thanks for your time! Olessi 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll expand the "rural settlements" entry per your request. If I may ask, what's so important about the one in Kaliningrad Oblast that it needs not to be lost among other ones? It's just another rural settlement among thousands others, and it is not even the largest of all the settlements by that name. It's the only one that currently has an article about it, but I suspect that's only because it used to be a town in East Prussia, so it gets more attention from the West. Anyway, I'm just curious. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly, as a westerner interested in East Prussian localities, the Kaliningrad Oblast is more interesting to me personally because of its history as Trakehnen. I believe you when you say that the locality is not important today, but in the articles' current states, I haven't seen the need for a separate disambiguation page (especially since the "Tolstoy YP" and "Trakehnen YP" articles are essentially of the same length at the moment). Cheers as well! Olessi 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I figured. Anyway, the dab page now sports the list of the largest and/or most important rural settlements by that name. There are many more, but I don't have means to verify those at this time. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for. Olessi 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions of Arkhangelsk Oblast

OK but all of the Russian oblasts need a raion and city navigation box as is covered in Ukraine. Otherwise vast important info is not present. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true, eventually they will need to be done. The city/town navboxes are currently in development, and the raion ones are low priority because there aren't that many articles about raions yet. A navbox is only useful when there are articles it can navigate :)
As for the Ukrainian navboxes, I'm not a huge fan of those. They are too bloated, in my view. Considering how most of the articles on Russian federal subjects are barely stubs, adding a bloated navbox would just overwhelm them without adding much value.
In any case, do what you feel is right, only please make sure that it fits into already existing naming and navigational schemes (I had to rename all articles you created about the districts, for example, which could have been easily avoided if you checked how other oblasts are structured). Also, make sure you use right terminology ("subdivisions" and "administrative divisions" are not the same thing, for example)—I don't mind to clean up, but I'd rather have it done right in the first place.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions—I'll be glad to help! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Yes I absolutely agree with you there is no point just yet setting up the navigation bozes if no or very minor articles. But Russian federal subjects are vastly underdeveloped compared to others on wikipedia and should not be excuded from being developed evenly and properly. At present I think it is best a Wikiproject:Russia or Russian Oblasts get together and go through each of the raion districts.Agreed? I won't waste any time on boxes yet. At present though the underdeveloped and missing articles are quite embarrassing to the project!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe what you are looking for is Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects, which I started in 2004, and which has been in limbo for over a year now. It has all the guidelines regarding how the articles on Russian federal subjects should be formatted and what information is the most essential. If you wish to join (or take over :)) that project, you are very welcome to do so. Heck, if you stick with it (others who came before you did not last long, unfortunately), I might as well resume working on it. Starting working on districts, I think, can wait until we have decent articles on higher-level administrative units, stubbiness of which is a true embarassment to the project. They are also a place to start if you wish to see the Russia-related geo-content "developed evenly and properly".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh and by the way I did check article names but with Ukraine called .... Raion. Another inconsistency on wikipedia. Russian districts are not called ...Raion but Ukrainian ones are?
Ukraine is a different country. A community of Ukrainian editors works on Ukraine-related articles. Accordingly, a community of Russian editors works on Russia-related articles. If Ukrainians want to primarily call their districts "raions" in English, it is their decision. For Russia, the consensus was that the term "districts" works better. A similar situation is with oblasts. Russian and Ukrainian ones are "oblasts", but Belarusian are "voblasts", and those in Kazakhstan are "provinces". And so on, and so forth. What works for one country does not necessarily work for another. Still, theoretically, would "raions" work for Russia? Absolutely. The thing, however, is that the infrastructural schemes for Russian administrative divisions were set up before the Ukrainian and Belarusian ones. When Ukrainian and Belarusian folks decided it was time to create their own infrastructures, they did not use the same scheme as Russia, but created their own. That, if you wondered, is the reason why similar administrative units, dating back to the same Soviet concept, are called differently in Wikipedia. For the record, it took me a week to convince Ukrainian editors to use the term urban-type settlement to refer to pgts; I simply don't have either time or desire to go through convincing them that "districts" is a better term than "raions", especially considering that Ukrainian editors are probably just as unwilling to dismantle a working solution in favor of an alternative with dubious benefits as I am. It would be an arduous work resulting in very slim improvements.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi again thankyou for your message. You seem like a very intelligent plausible person on the same wavelength with me. I agree with you that the larger Oblast articles should be improved because yes it is a true embarrassment to the project. However one aspect of them I don't like is the seperate pages on admin. divisions. As the articles are so very short I think this is very unecssary. They look a mess and are not set out very well. I beleive they are necessary on the main Oblast page but condensed into a smart looking table box. This I think should be the start. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
yes the information in the admin seperate articles is excellent but iI think it needs putting in a less confusing table or something Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, and same wavelength it is :) As a matter of fact, I've been thinking about how to make the administrative divisions articles into featured lists. Currently, administrative divisions of Adygea is the most developed, and the only one that underwent a peer review (a link to which is available through that article's talk page). It is also a good demonstration of why I cut the administrative divisions into separate articles instead of leaving them as a section in the main article in the first place—the end result is intended to be a lot more than just a bland list of administrative divisions. I do agree, however, that their layout can be improved. If you have any suggestions, I will be only too happy to listen—so far there's been plenty of critics, but no one seems to be willing to actually suggest improvements that would work (administrative divisions of Moscow is a great example of an alternative layout that works just as poorly as the existing one). As for the tables being confusing, it is, unfortunately, for the most part due to the fact that the ties and structures they describe are just as confusing. A table is the most natural choice that allows the work to be done, but is not necessarily the best fit for the final output. When you have a city divided into districts with a few towns and urban-type settlements under jurisdiction of each district and with each town having several selsovets in their subordinance, no matter how you stack them, you are bound to get output that's confusing to (at least some) readers.
Anyway, back to the main articles. I have nothing against putting sleak boxes with all administrative divisions listed, but, again, while administrative divisions are an important aspect, they are not the most important one. The very least that needs to be done to the articles on federal subjects is infoboxes (most republics already have one) with basic stats. Until it's done, any one elaborately written and nicely formatted section would just highlight overall inadequacy of the whole article and look out-of-place. By the way, it only takes an hour at most to make a summary box with administrative divisions for any given federal subject, so believe me, "hard to make" was not the reason why we still don't have them. I by no means want to discourage you from taking onto this endeavor, I just want you to understand that your work will likely not be as appreciated as you probably hope, and that the overall level of interest towards Russian administrative divisions from others is quite, erm, absent low. If that's not a problem for you, go ahead, make the boxes :) I'll gladly lend a hand in reviewing them and making sure they fit into existing scheme. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ha! There is now way I expect for people to appreciate my work. Have you seen all of my thousands of contributions to wikipedia!!!!!! I have only ever had a few minimal compliments!! Yes I agree that subdivions of Russia can seem very boring but they needn't be if tarted up and set out clearly. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krasnoye

Regarding CrazyRussian's edit to Krasnoye Selo, I think "krasnoye" means "red", beautiful is "krasivoye". Where is the truth? - Darwinek 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, in modern Russian "krasivoye" is used for "beautiful". "Krasnoye", however, not only means "red", it is also an archaic (and poetic) form for "beautiful".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions of Moscow

/English/ Why have you unchanged my changes? In comments Administrative divisions of Moscow you wrote please do not mix up the terms of administrative and municipal divisions. The article is about administrative units, not about municipalities. I didn't do anything with municipalities (Kryukovo, Panfilovsky or/and etc.). I'd did 2 corretion:

1) I'd corrected City of Zelenograd to Zelenograd Administrative Okrug. ZelAO (ЗелАО) is one of ten Administrative Okrugs of Moscow (see ru:Административное деление Москвы). Zelenograd (city) is the majority of ZelAO, but it's not whole of them.

2) I'd inserted the widly used acronyms of Administrative Okrugs and their lat. transliterations. Is this information uninteresting or mistaken?

/Русский/ Почему вы отменили мои исправления? В комментариях вы написали ---. Я ничего не делал с муниципалитетами (Крюково, Панфиловский и/или другие). Я сделал две коррекции:

1. Исправил город ru:Зеленоград на ru:Зеленоградский административный округ. ЗелАО - это один из десяти округов Москвы (см. ru:Административное деление Москвы). Зеленоград же - большая часть ЗелАО, но не вся.

2. Ввёл широко употребляемые сокращения названий округов и их латинские транслитерации. Моя информация неинтересна или ошибочна?

--Alex Spade 19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) See also (см. также) ru:Участник:Alex Spade

Hi, Alex! Thanks for you interest and inquiry. The reason for my change was that the article as it exists is about administrative and territorial divisions of the city (i.e., as described in the Law of the City of Moscow On territorial division of the city of Moscow ("О территориальном делении города Москвы")), not about its municipal division (i.e., as described in the Law of the city of Moscow On creation of internal municipalities of the city of Moscow ("Об образовании внутригородских муниципальных образований города Москвы")). The difference in general is between Moscow's "внутригородские муниципальные образования" (such as "ZelAO") and "районы города" (such as "City of Zelenograd", which, by the way, is not the same as Zelenograd proper).
Anyway, if the subject overall interests you, you might want to take a look at Talk:Administrative divisions of Vologda Oblast, where another user was challenging the accuracy of that article for the similar reason. That discussion was in Russian, but I see you have no problem with that.
Rest assured, I did not revert your edit because it was "uninteresting", but it was indeed "mistaken". I apologize that my edit summary was not clear enough to explain my motives. The information you added belongs to (currently non-existing) Municipal divisions of Moscow, not to this article. You are more than welcome to start the article about Moscow's municipalities; that set will need to be created eventually anyway, and Moscow is as good place to start as any.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log

Why do you keep reverting the addition of human feaces to the disambig page on log? I think I should be there. I know wikipedia is not a dictonary, but the edit applies to a wikipedia article. It is not just a defination, but a redirect to a page that may be hard to find by someone who does not know the correct article name. Think outside the box 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but just because it contains a link it does not automatically become more than a dictionary definition, especially considering the fact that it specifically defines the term as "slang". I would recommend that you study the disambiguation page guidelines for more information on why this particular entry is unfit. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hedgehog

May I just comment here to tell you I am seriously fangirling your revert to Hedgehog? It gave me a good giggle. :) Mhari 03:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All in a day's work :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hiding the violations

[edit] Schlüsselburg

Thank You for Your attention. However, I still wonder, why then Wikipedia uses the (right) name Peterhof and not "Petergof"..?

Please, read from here: "They may be names borrowed from Russian through another language, e.g., Petergof→Peterhof."

So, same with the German name Shlisselburg→Schlüsselburg.

Sincerely,

PKo, 25. September 2006, 17.06 (UTC)

"Peterhof" is the form that's more common in English than "Petergof". When that's the case, the non-transliterated version takes precedence over the transliteration. English usage is what matters the most in the English Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia, it would, of course, be the predominant German spelling that matters and is used as a title.
As for the WP:RUS statement you quoted, the key part of it is "may be". Again, the usage in English is the main factor of whether or not to use forms borrowed from other languages.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You don´t understand: in Russian language there is no 'sch' and 'ü', so in Russian language they must write š (cyrillic ш) and i (и), but they mean with the word "Šlisselburg" (engl. transcr. "Shlisselburg") the German name Schlüsselburg. Same is with the word "Petergof" → Peterhof and "Sankt-Peterburg" → Sankt Peterburg (St. Petersburg in Russian from German).
Sincerely,
--PKo 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
PKo, on the contrary, I understand it very well (Russian is my native language, by the way). Yes, there are no "sch" and "ü" (Roman) letter combinations in Russian, and yes, other means are used to approximate them. Once the word is "approximated" ("Шлиссельбург", "Петергоф"), the resulting words are what is used by Russians; that's what you will find in the Russian dictionaries.
Once a word is adopted, it may migrate to other languages. In case of Shlisselburg, the name migrated to English from Russian, hence the English spelling of "Shlisselburg". "Peterhof", on the other hand, migrated to English directly from German, bypassing Russian (which would be "Petergof"). Why and how it works is in the end completely unimportant. What's important, is the preferred modern English usage, and that's what Wikipedia uses. Just because "Shlisselburg" is "Schlüsselburg" in German is not a good enough reason to change the article's title in the English Wikipedia. That's simply not the name under which the town is known to Anglophones. "Schlüsselburg", however, is a redirect and it is mentioned in the body of the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You wrote: In case of Shlisselburg, the name migrated to English from Russian, hence the English spelling of "Shlisselburg". Yes, but we know, that is from German, like "Petergof" and "Sankt-Peterburg". For example, I think that You don't suggest that from Russian newspaper or book You wrote "Garri Gopkins" but Harry Hopkins...
Sincerely,
--PKo 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I know perfectly well that the name originated from German—it is a plain obvious and well-known fact; there is no need to convince me. However, it just so happened that the English language did not borrow it from German, but from Russian, and that's the name that's commonly used in English (as at least two major English language encyclopedias attest). Wikipedia uses the version commonly used in English; it is Wikipedia's policy. The fact that the word is originally German is irrelevant in this case. "Garri Gopkins" is not a valid comparison because it is not the name that's currently commonly used in English, just as "Petergof" is not ("Harry Hopkins" and "Peterhof" are used instead). I am sorry, but I don't know how else to explain this to you. The bottom line is that "Schlüsselburg" is unacceptable because Anglophones prefer the other variant. Unless you can prove otherwise (convincing Britannica editors to change the spelling would be a good first step; pardon my sarcasm), I suggest we close this discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So, Wikipedia shows that there is no logic: Peterhof but Shlisselburg. Pity...
Sincerely,
--PKo 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you still have not understood what I was trying to explain. The logic of the policy is to use the name that's commonly used, not whatever else someone might want to impose on the community (I don't mean you, by the way—see naming-related archives here for an excellent illustration of what I mean). The lack of logic you see simply mirrors the lack of logic in natural languages, which are abundant with exceptions and inconsistencies. Once you accept and understand it, you'll see that it actually simplifies things, not complicates them. Also, if I may remind you, it is your right to challenge any Wikipedia policy you disagree with. Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian grammar

It seems as though, once again, I am in desire of your native-speaker services; this time in the Russian grammar article. I'd like to refine the IPA but I don't know the stress to all the words. If a word has two stresses, don't be afraid to mark both of them. It doesn't look like it should take you more than a few minutes, but there's no rush. Thank you in advance. AEuSoes1 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly do you want those stress marks? On every Russian word in the article? Or do you have some specific sections in mind?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just on the IPA transcriptions that are already there. I've put stress (hopefully correctly) on some of the IPA transcriptions but I can only do so much. AEuSoes1 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. One request, though. If you are going to ask me to do this again in future, could you please not put the stresses in words which you know for sure? I apparently have an incomplete font in my IE, so most of IPA symbols (including the stress mark) look as empty boxes to me in the edit box, so I have to compare what's in the edit box with the a copy of the article to make sure I don't accidentally put the stress mark in twice.
Also, I noticed that in most examples with "-сп+vowel" combinations IPA shows that "с" is soft. Just want to let you know that it's not the case—I, for one, pronounce it hard (in fact, it takes an extra effort for me to pronounce soft "с" in the examples I corrected). I might have missed some, though, so you might want to take a look at this one more time.
Finally, in the word "колонн" the final "-нн" does not sound long.
Hope I've been able to help. Let me know if you need anything else or if you have questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I've narrowerized (not a real word) the transcription. What dialect of Russian do you speak? According to Sound Pattern of Russian (1959) there are two possibilities for for paired dental consonants before palatalized labial and dental consonants and before |lʲ|:
In standard Moscow pronunciation they are always palatalized
In literary pronunciation it goes something like
  1. Within a simple word, labials tend to be palatalized
  2. |n| is palatalized before palatalized dental consonants and plain before palatalized labial consonants
  3. In complex words across prefix and preposition boundaries, dental continuants are palatalized before palatalized dental consonants and before |lʲ| but are plain before palatalized labial consonants. Dental stops in this position differ "from plain stops in other positions by a tendency towards delabialization." (p68)
I've been going with the standard Moscow pronunciation since it's generally simpler. AEuSoes1 02:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, man, but you lost me soon after the "Sound Pattern of Russian (1959)" :) I am not a linguist after all, I just speak the language.
I don't speak Moscow dialect, I can tell you that much. Maaaskvaaa-speak does in fact sound very unpleasant and silly to me; so if they palatalize their "с"'s before palatalized "п"'s (I don't quite remember if they do, and don't have a native Muscovite nearby to perform an autopsy on), that must be one of the thousand reasons why. I am originally from the Russian Far East, by the way, if that helps you pinpoint the dialect I am speaking. Sorry that I am not of much help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah ha! I had a feeling standard Moskva dialect would sound grating to other speakers. I feel the same way about Australian. AEuSoes1 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I find it incredibly hilarious that you know so much about Russian phonology but don't speak Russian, and that I speak Russian but have no clue about Russian phonology. A perfect team, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for del

The page as it exists is not quite MOSDAB-compliant—I can see how it can be mistaken for a dictdef. Anyway, I voted to keep it, but it should really be re-formatted, even though it means having a bunch of red links.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
it should not be called dab at all, but be about slavic word ob/ps/ctine/a. best Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it starts with "Opština... can refer to", so if you don't want it to be mistaken for a dab, I suggest rewording the intro and replacing the list of meanings with narrative.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirogovs

Hi, I just wrote the Pyrohiv (Kiev) and created the Pirogov dab. Now, my question is what to do with Pirogovo.

There are several locations in RU with this name, along with the Pirogovo Reservoir near Moscow. How notable are they. Should Pirogovo be a redirect to a very notable Pyrohiv (Kiev)? Then Russian settlements should be added to Pirogovo (disambiguation) page. Another option is to have two separate disambiguations: Pirogov (disamgiguation) and Pirogovo being a disambiguation too. I am kust not sure how many Pirogovos are in Russia and whether any of them are particularly notable. --Irpen 21:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I'd do it is this. Pirogov and Pirogovo (disambiguation) should be two separate dabs (Nikolai Pirogov isn't the only notable person by that name; I'll add more on Monday), but interlinked with each other via the "see also" section. Pirogovo proper should definitely redirect to Pyrohiv (note that "(Kiev)" disambiguator is unnecessary, unless there are other entities by the name of "Pyrohiv"), and Pyrohiv should contain a dablink at the top stating that "Pirogovo redirects here; for other uses see Pirogovo (disambiguation)". All Russian villages named "Pirogovo" should be listed at Pirogovo (disambiguation)—I don't have my master list with me at the moment, but I'll check on Monday to see how many are there. Geo-locations are inherently notable, so they should be listed, although I usually don't list minor villages, adding a statement that "such and such is the name of several rural settlements in Russia" to the disambiguation pages instead. I plan on going through the villages when all districts/cities/towns/urban-type settlements are interlinked and disambiguated.
Let me know if this explanation is too confusing. If you wish, I can implement this scheme on Monday after I check the master list of the Russian settlements.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, pls do. As for the article I wrote, I do not object if it is moved from Pyrohiv (Kiev) to Pyrohiv. Even if there are other Pyrohivs in UA, they are certainly less notable. --Irpen 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, done. Please re-check in case I missed anything. Also, the article on Nikolay Ivanovich Pirogov states that he was born in Pirogovo, Ukraine. I take it's different from Pyrohiv, but could you look into it, please? The "modern name" spelling would need to be corrected at the very least. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I added the Pirogovo Reservoir near Moscow to the dab. As for Pirogov's birth, that was the easiest part, as NP was born in Moscow. I don't know who and when added Pirogovo there. He died in Ukraine, indeed. --Irpen 18:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Good catch! You never know what you are going to find once you start untangling all those redirects/dabs. Thanks for fixing it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Primorsky_Krai_Flag.png

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Svg version was available, I deleted the image.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Patriarch: Job or Jove?

I need your opinion about this. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much (well, anything) about the subject, so I may be missing something, but we should use the name under which this person is best known in English language academic works. If more than one version is commonly used, then any would be acceptable (the choice of the first major contributor usually takes precedence). If there are many versions, none of which is firmly established, we should go with romanization (Iov). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The preferred romanization seems to be Job. Here's a larger problem. If you don't see much sense at the moves of Ksnyatin to Ksniatin and Sknyatino to Skniatino (especially with our system of redirects), you may want to explain our guidelines to User:Kazak, who performs the moves so enthusiastically. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I will explain the geo-portion. As for the historical names, I see Mikka and Irpen already left him their notes. You might want to leave one yourself so there's no mistake that such massive moves are disruptive. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandals

Grigori Rasputin: vandals tend to flock. Always check prev edit as well, not just hit rv button. Look even deeper in pages that attract vandals, as this one. `'mikka (t) 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually do. I don't see what I missed, though—all your edit did was to restore a blank line. Did you miss something yourself?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
OOps. the prev vandal added and deleted a line of stupid text. I just confused left and right panes of comparison when stepping thru changes. My bad. `'mikka (t) 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Happens to me every once in a while, too :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Khristenko

I saw you tend to edit Russia-related articles. If you are familiar with Viktor Khristenko, a former Prime Minister of Russia, please do your best to expand the article or add references to uncited content. Thanks, DRK 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia

Something must be done to reduce the size of the article. Do you find nice the pictures with peasants? As if Russia is a country of peasants.--РКП 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Peasants" are a part of Russia's history; there is nothing wrong with that. The picture is more than appropriate in the history section—Russia was primarily an agricultural country; "a country of peasants" if you wish. Besides, removing the image would do almost nothing to reduce its size.
While I do agree that the article could be shortened, perhaps considerably, I absolutely do not condone the way you did it. Cutting pieces out and shoveling them to loosely-related locations is not the way to go. Trimming such a high-profile article requires a well-thought plan, and obtaining a second opinion from other interested parties before making edits wouldn't have hurt either. What's the rush, anyway?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ëzhiki, apparently things can change very rapidly here in Wikipedia. You are free to edit, free to delete, free to add new lines. Let's see how it is in reality. Things don't change so rapidly. So? You're free to make it more flexible, to cut it. --РКП 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because things can change very rapidly doesn't always mean one should be changing them as fast as one can. If you rapidly improve something, no one will be against it. What you did, however, can hardly be classified as an improvement, although I am sure you had best intentions at heart. Please listen to what others have to say; all of the points raised on your talk page are very valid.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Up to now, you're the only one who isn't subjective on this matter. The rest wants to keep huge parts of trash. It's not good for Russia--РКП 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that this user is a seasoned troll. Right now he is contributing nothing, only making nuisance with frivolous tags and arbitrary splitting of articles. `'mikka (t) 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rvv (via UR-100)

Yes, I did it manually. I don't know how to revert articles. I'd like to know how. --jno 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jno, in order to revert to one of the previous versions, go to article's "history" (a tab next to the "edit this page" tab). I trust you know how to use this screen to see the diffs between versions (if not, let me know). Click on the date/time link of the version you want to revert to, then press "edit this page". You'll be presented with a normal edit screen, except there will be a pink warning at the top reminding you that the version you are about to edit is not current. Type "reverting vandalism" or something of that nature into the "edit summary" box and save the page. Voilà! Let me know if anything is still unclear, or see Help:Reverting for more detailed instructions. The only difference between admins and non-admins is that admins can revert to the previous version with one click, instead of going through multiple steps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It's really goofy to not find such a facility - I use history feature intensively... --jno 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban categories

Could you please comment on this? Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If "Shlisselburg", then "Kyonigsberg"?

Well, if the Russian town Schlüsselburg (Шлиссельбург) is in English "Shlisselburg", will then the 'new-old' name of Kaliningrad possibly be, not Königsberg (Кёнигсберг) but "Kyonigsberg"..?

Sincerely.

--PKo 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The original name of Kaliningrad did not come into English from Russian, as it was the case with Shlisselburg. That fact is easily verified by running a check against major English-language encyclopedias.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So, no logic. What a pity...
Sincerely,
--PKo 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to add except to refer you to the naming policy for the umpteenth time. How can you not see the logic of that policy???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the German name Schlüsselburg it is not written in Russian Схлиссельбург, "Shlisselburg", but Шлиссельбург, "Šlisselburg".
Sincerely,
--PKo 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
On that, please re-read WP:RUS. You might also find BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian of interest. The bottom line is that we generally do not use romanization systems that utilize diacritics. Any more questions?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
In English You can well use letter š, look at e.g. Škoda Auto.
Furthermore, I still can't understand, that You write "Shlisselburg", although Russian czar Peter I the Great gave expressly German name Schlüsselburg to the town. If Кёнигсберг would be Königsberg, then of course Шлиссельбург is Schlüsselburg like Петергоф is Peterhof! Please, be logical.
Sincerely,
--PKo 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
PKo, "Škoda" is a Czech name, not Russian. Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic, so there is no need to romanize it. Even with Cyrillic, romanization rules differ—compare, for example, how romanization of Russian is different from, say, romanization of Ukrainian.
As for your second question, would you please finally read the policy? "Use English" means that one is supposed to use the name that is most common in the modern English language. The variant "Schlüsselburg" is used in modern English, but it's not nearly as common as "Shlisselburg", which is why the latter is the title of the article, and the former is mentioned in the article's body. With "Peterhof", it's the other way around, but it's all for the same reason.
Finally, just to make sure you understand, I am not the person who developed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); I merely uphold this policy as any other admin would. If you dislike this policy to the point you think it should be changed, I suggest you stop bombarding me with numerous variations of the same question and move on to Wikipedia:How to create policy, or at least to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), where your questions will be answered by other people, who, being more passionate about this topic, may be able to provide you with a more satisfactory answer regarding the policy logic or lack thereof than yours truly.
Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, that "Škoda" is a Czech name and Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet. So, You know the latin letter š in English. Why You then write "Shlisselburg", but not "Šlisselburg"? In Russian it is not Схлиссельбург, but Шлиссельбург.
Sincerely,
--PKo 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Because it's Russian, not Czech. Because the policy governing romanization of Russian (WP:RUS) is based on BGN/PCGN system, which specifically targets speakers of English, and not on scientific transliteration/ISO 9, which utilize diacritics that is confusing to many Anglophones. You know that ISO 9 is not the only transliteration system out there, don't you? We had to select one of those available, and BGN/PCGN was judged by the community to be the best fit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
So, the Russian letter "ш" is in English "sh". What is then two Russian letters (combined) "сх" in English? Perhaps no "skh", because it comes from Russian "скх"..;)
Sincerely,
--PKo 16:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
PKo, it's a pity that you don't bother to read materials at the links I provided, because if you took time just once to read through them, you wouldn't have to ask me all these unnecessary questions. It's all there, really.
To answer your question anyway—per WP:RUS/BGN/PCGN, "ш"="sh", "х"="kh", "сх"="skh", and "скх"="skkh". "H/h" is never used by itself. See, no ambiguity. For those rare cases where ambiguity exists (such as "ц" vs "тс"), BGN/PCGN provides the interpunct character, but usually it's not a problem even without it as no meaning is lost.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saimaa Canal

There is another transliteration dispute where your comments are welcome. See this, for instance. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Both wrong. Romanization of Russian is governed by the guideline in the Wikipedia space (i.e., Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian), not by the article is the Main namespace (i.e., Romanization of Russian). I made the correction accordingly. Thanks once again for bringing this to my attention!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem here is that both of you are ignoring the conventional name for the island, which should according to WP:RUS override any other version. The conventional name is what was already there. -Yupik 17:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yupik, by "conventional name" do you mean the name "that's commonly used in English" (as per WP:ENGLISH)? Because, if that's the case, you are incorrect. "Malyj Vysotskij" is not an English name, it's merely one of possible transliterations of a geographic name (namely, GOST 16876-71); one that's used by Russians and, consequently, by Finns—hence you get the impression the name is conventional. We don't use that particular system in Wikipedia; modified BGN/PCGN romanization (WP:RUS) is used instead, especially when it comes to geographic names, because otherwise, using your logic, every single Russian location transliterated via GOST would become a "conventional English name". "Conventional" names include "Moscow" and "Saint Petersburg", which are included in virtually every English dictionary, but not "Malyj Vysotskij", which is virtually unknown outside the area of the canal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I mean the name that is commonly used by HAM operators around the world and the one that has appeared in various treaties. I couldn't find any reference to it in EU documents unfortunately. Slightly OT, but why has Wikipedia decided to deviate from the transliteration that is taught in universities and used in libraries? I'm sure there are plenty more mismatched placenames because of it. -Юит или Катя 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Катя, since this is English Wikipedia, the transliteration system that specifically targeted English-speakers was the most logical choice. BGN/PCGN conventions are used by governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom.
As for HAM operators—again, there are HAM operators in quite a few Russian settlements, and all those operators probably use GOST. That doesn't automatically make those GOST-transliterated names "conventional in English". Pretty much the same goes for the EU conventions—the fact that you can't find it there just confirms that the location is quite obscure and doesn't really have a conventional English name. As for the treaties, am I correct that they would have been signed by Russia and Finland—countries in none of which English is an official language? I don't know about Finland, but Russia uses GOST in its English-language treaties—the whole purpose of GOST is to provide means to render Russian names in Latin script, and international treaties certainly qualify.
In conclusion, if the topic of transliterating Russian really interests you that much, I invite you to participate in WP:CYR policy thinktank discussions. WP:CYR's goal is to establish a set of rules that would govern romanization of all languages that use Cyrillics. Once it's adopted, it will replace WP:RUS and a handful of similar existing policies. It's been awfully quiet there for a while now, but if you come up with fresh ideas, comments, or just let your point of view known, there is a good chance you'll be heard by more people than just me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies and I will try and participate in WP:CYR when I have time. -Yupik 19:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

[edit] Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ushayka River

Thank you for copyedit of my ugly article, now you know why usually I don't write articles here :) Sorry for inconviniences and thank you for your help! MaxiMaxiMax 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It was a little rough, but a decent start nevertheless. Maybe if you were actually writing here, you'd start getting better and better, but I guess we already tried mutually recruiting one another for "our" language projects without much success :)) Anyway, it was no inconvenience whatsoever. The only thing is if you are going to write Russia-related articles again, could you, please, announce them here (I already added Ushayka)? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, how did you manage to find this article just after its's creation? Do you look after Russia-stub articles category changes or there was another way? MaxiMaxiMax 05:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry for not answering earlier—I missed this message of yours completely in between messages of others. The answer is simple—I found it by means of a carefully planned accident :) I have pretty much every single article about Russian cities/towns/villages/districts/etc/etc watchlisted, and you added an Ushayka link to Tomsk. If it weren't for that, I doubt I'd ever see it. See, nothing mysterious...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolay

Hi Ezhiki,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was, however, referring to WP:MOSDAB. I have been reformatting disambiguation pages since January, at which time I read through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages very thoroughly. I have not referred back to it very often since then. Apparently the guidelines have changed. Now having read the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", I agree with your assessment that the people named "Nikolay" or "Nikolai" should not be mixed with other entries. The entries should be moved to List of people named Nikolay.

If this change is made, the only entries left on Nikolay will be Nikolai, Alaska and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. I would suggest that Nikolai be switched from a redirect page to a short disambiguation page with these two entries and a "See also" section with a link to Nicholas and List of people named Nikolai. Nikolay could then be switched to a redirect page to List of people named Nikolay. Let me know what you think.

Neelix 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, thank you for your thorough explanation. Unannounced changes in the guidelines hit everyone every once in a while, so no problem there.
I have several comments regarding your response above. First of all, creating separate lists of people named "Nikolay" and "Nikolai" is really unnecessary. Both spellings refer to the same Russian name of "Николай"; the only difference is the transliteration method. Second, Prince Nikolai of Denmark wouldn't be the only one left. Both Nicholas I and II should stay, because they are well-known as either Nicholases or Nikola[y/i]s. Nikolai, Alaska, of course, is a definite keep. Alwin Nikolais should probably go, or he may be mentioned in the "see also" section.
Finally, about the list of people named Nikolay. Would you like to compile this list yourself, or would you prefer me doing it? For starters, it can include over sixty Nikolays listed in the list of Russians; others will surely follow.
Again, thanks for taking time to respond to this. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki,
I'm glad we're working this out together. The reason I have been editing pages relating to "Nicholas" is that all of its varients are listed on that page. I would like to use that page as a hub, each varient linked to a list of people with that name. That way, the etymology and origin of the names need only be recorded on the "Nicholas" page. A page called List of people named Nicholas could be linked as well. This would eliminate the need to have the "Famous persons with the name Nicholas" on the "Nicholas" page. I would also suggest that a person should be listed on only one of the "List of people named..." pages linked from "Nicholas". This would avoid needless repetition.
For this reason, I would not leave "Nicholas I of Russia" and "Nicholas II of Russia" on "Nikolay" as they could be listed on "List of people named Nicholas". As to who should make the changes, I would like to try, but there are so many varients that any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Let's solidify our solution before we start in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Neelix 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Neelix, the problem with listing people in only one list has merit insofar as navigation is facilitated, but it may be a problem if it's the only approach we consider. Although "Nicholas XX" is the prevailing usage, it is not at all uncommon when these two emperors are referred to as Nikola[y/i] XX in English, and it is impossible to tell which of these titles a reader would expect to find. We, of course, should provide for both contingencies.
Considering how I handled similar situations in the past, here is how I would do it for Nicholas I (just an example):
  • he would be listed as Nicholas I on the "Nicholas" dab page;
  • "Nicholas" dab page would link to "Nikolay" dab page, to the "list of people named Nicholas", and to the "list of people named Nikolay" in the "see also" section;
  • Nicholas I would be listed on "Nikolay" disambiguation page, with a note that while "Nicholas" is prevailing usage, "Nikolay" is also common (aka clause)
  • "Nikolay" dab page would link to "Nicholas" dab page, to the "list of people named Nikolay", and to the "list of people named Nicholas" in the "see also" section;
  • "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology, with cross-links to related dabs and lists;
  • Nicholas I would be listed in the list of people named Nicholas;
  • he would also be listed in the list of people named Nikolay, with a note stating that while "Nicholas" variant is more common in English, "Nikolay" is also used;
The reason why I prefer keeping both Nicholases on the "Nikolay" dab page is the same MOSDAB provision I cited above. They both are very frequently referred to simply by their single name, be it "Nicholas" or "Nikolay".
I understand that the original way you proposed is cleaner and simpler, but unfortunately it may not serve the best interests of readers (the "needless repetition" you mentioned is in fact not needless—in this particular case it serves a useful purpose). If you have other suggestions regarding how to improve this (admittedly quite complicated!) situation, I'll be more than happy to hear them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki,
I've never had such an in-depth conversation with someone on Wikipedia before. I do think we're getting somewhere.
I can understand why you want to list "Nicholas I of Russia" on so many different list pages and disambiguation pages, so I will go along with it. There are, however, a few things in the scheme you outlined which still seem to constitute "needless repitition":
You have suggested that "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology. Should not the origins and etimology of the name Nikolay and Nicholas both be explained on the Nicholas page as they are both derivatives of Nikolaos? The majority of this information should be the same. I would suggest that "Nikolay" be a redirect to "Nicholas" as that is where links to "List of people named derivative of Nikolaos" could be located. It is currently where the list of derivatives are located. If you feel that this location is biased towards the common English spelling, perhaps this information (derivatives along with their "List of people named..." links) could be located on the "Nikolaos" page and all its derivatives could redirect there (or link there in the case that a disambiguation page for a derivative is necessary).
It is important to develop a scheme which could be followed for all the derivatives of "Nikolaos" rather than just "Nikolay" and "Nikolai". Thank you for persisting with me in developing this scheme.
Neelix 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Neelix, I sure hope you are enjoying this discussion of ours, because I can go like that all day :) Thanks for bearing with me and for your patience.
To address your issues: first of all, just to clarify, I don't want to include these Russian tsars into every page related to "Nicholas", only to "Nicholas" itself and to "Nikolay" (and into two corresponding lists of people), so there are just four pages, not many.
Second, you are absolutely correct that the information about name origins and etimology should be (and already is) included in "Nicholas", not in "Nikolay". It was an oversight on my part—thanks for catching this inconsistency in my logic.
I wouldn't, however, make "Nikolay" a redirect to "Nicholas". From what I understand, you said above that you do not object to including Russian tsars to the "Nikolay" dab page. With the prince and the Alaskan town, there are four entries, which well justifies existence of a separate dab page. Same goes for all other variants of Nicholas—if there is a sufficient number of entries for a dab page, there should be a said dab; if the number of entries is two or less, then a redirect to "Nicholas" would suffice.
The dab pages, in turn, would point to "Nicholas" as the main article about the name, list entries which comply with MOSDAB, and provide links to applicable lists (such as "list of people named Nikolay" on "Nikolay" dab page) in the "see also" section.
As for minor name variations ("Nikolai" vs. "Nikolay"), this phenomenon is extremely common for Russian names. I would simply make "Nikolai" a redirect to "Nikolay" dab (not to "Nicholas"!) where all Nikolais and Nikolays would be bundled together. For a similar solution, check out Sovetsky, which lists all three forms (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of the Russian adjective, all of which redirect to that dab. "See also" also provides a link to Soviet (disambiguation) as well as a link to the derivative form Sovetsk.
I think such system covers all contingencies. Let me know if you see anything that wouldn't work if applied to the situation in question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki,
I do believe we have come to some conclusion. The scheme you have outlined sounds like it would work very well. I do not see any problems with it. Would you mind reformatting "Nikolai", "Nikolay", "List of people named Nikolai", and "List of people named Nikolay" as you have suggested? I would like to view your edits in order to make sure I understand your method. If I still have no concerns, I will gladly use your formatting as a template for the other derivatives of "Nicholas", and possibly for other names after that.
I'm so glad we have worked this out. It has been good conversing with you.
Neelix 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a pleasure working with you too, Neelix. I will make an effort to work on Nicholas-related lists/dabs tomorrow; if nothing urgent comes up, that is. Let me know if you need anything else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Hello again,
After doing some research into the subject, I believe the current convention is to do away with as many individual lists as possible, replacing them with categories. The rest are to be compiled by linking them all together, as in List of people by name or Lists of office-holders. The only guideline I have been able to find about who should not be included in "List of people by name" states that fictional people should not be included. In the case of people named Nikolai or Nikolay, it is probably best to simply list them in "List of people by name". Thank you for pointing this out. I could have wasted a lot of time compiling unconventional lists.
Neelix 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
PS - After looking into the matter a little more, I find that people are not listed on the "List of people by name" by their given name(s) if they have a surname. I am unsure of whether these people should be listed on a "List of people named..." page, although this would be my best guess. If you find out anything about this, please let me know.

[edit] Links to Wikimapia

Ezhiki, Thanks for editing help on Kstovo. Uniformity is indeed important. I was wondering though why you thought it desirable to remove the link to the wikimapia.org page? Having the new "coordinates" link was very good of course -- it gives links to all kinds of maps -- but it does not (yet) gives one a Wikimapia link. Which, in my view, is rather unfortunate, as Wikimapia is a unique resource that allows the readers not only to view an annotatted map, but also to participated in a collaborative annotation process, much in the spirit of Wikipedia itself. Also, their UI is nicer (I think) than that on maps.google.com, even though of course the maps come from the same database.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmenkov (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Vmenkov! Thanks for contacting me.
Before you left your comment above, I was under impression that a link to Wikimapia is available through the list of maps attached to the article (you need to click on coordinates in the upper right corner of the article to get to that list). After checking, I see that Wikimapia's link is not in that list, so I am restoring it in the external links section for the time being. Thanks for pointing it out, and please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move...

Добрый день!

Я тут промахнулся. прошу переименоловать Википедия:Interwiki Report/ruwiki обратно в User:MaxSem/ruwiki - я промахнулся с проектами... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Готово. Вроде бы ничего сам не напутал :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Замечательно! Спасибо большое! :-). Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksmith Institute

Blacksmith Institute - need your help in checking spell for russian places. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, but I wonder if this organization is even notable. Have you heard of them before?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
yes, 30 minutes ago. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know them longer than that—a whole day :) Anyway, they get 16,000+ Google hits, which seems pretty notable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I even noticed them without Google. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Copyright

By assuming that most copyright page have an anti right click lock and by also assuming that it does not have a copyright insignia on the bottom right, I assume it to have no copyright, but that is in my opinion, I interpret the Copright rules loosely, so if its no there then its not copyright. You of course maybe have stricter interpretation.

-User:The Half Gauntlet

Thank you for the explanation. I wish copyright-related issue could be handled the way you described; unfortunately, that is not the case. Please also note that it's not the matter of my interpretation, but the way Wikipedia and real world work overall. Any written work is always copyrighted, unless it is explicitly released into public domain or distributed under a free license. Lack of copyright notice does not mean information can be freely distributed.
For more details, which will hopefully be useful to you in the future, I send you to WP:COPY, a Wikipedia's policy, and to Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ, its interpretation.
I will also remove the passage you added, although you are very welcome to re-write it, keeping the main points and facts.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge help

needed: Nahia into Nahiya. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, Nahia should be a redirect to Nahiya. Is there something else I am missing?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
the hist. nahia is older. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thx. Just to be sure: non admins can't? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you need deletion/undeletion priviliges to do something like that. Feel free to let me know if you find a similar situation, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Village

[edit] Date fragments

Hi, Rich! I've just spotted this edit of yours, and I thought I'd ask for a favor.

Linking single years is a habit I acquired in the past two years, and which is very hard to get rid of. I often catch myself linking single years without even thinking that I really shouldn't be doing it. One example is the dates of the Censuses, such as those you corrected in the diff above.

There are currently mighty many references to the 1989 Soviet Census and to the 2002 Russian Census. All of them are constructed as follows:

Population: xxx,xxx (2002 Census); yyy,yyy (1989 Census)

Since you are obviously not making all the changes by hand, would you consider adding an algorithm replacing the formatting above with this:

Population: xxx,xxxx (2002 Census); yyy,yyy (1989 Census)

I'll make an effort to switch, too; it's just that I really don't want to go back and change all existing formatting by hand.

This, of course, is by no means urgent, but I'd appreciate if you could let me know if it could be done. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is fairly straightforward, I have started on the fixes. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06 20 October 2006 (GMT).
Can you look at Kemerovo pop 522,6 thousand - does tht mean 6,522? Rich Farmbrough, 22:34 20 October 2006 (GMT).
Thanks for catching it and for your help with cleaning this up. Population of Kemerovo is around half a million; I corrected the numbers. The number has most likely been added by a Russian—in Russian, a comma is used as a decimal separator, and a space to separate thousands. Just a useless fact you might be interested in knowing :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

~:::Pleasure. Should all be done now. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 22 October 2006 (GMT).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/z/h/User_talk%7EEzhiki_2006_3c1b.html"