User talk:Elk Salmon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Welcome!

Hello, Elk Salmon/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Moscow Metro Undo

Moved to Talk:Moscow_Metro#Fiction_train. Elk Salmon 00:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Moscow Demographics

Hi Elk Salmon,

Can you explain your removal of the phrase "and early deaths" from the demographics section of Moscow? You commented that "it has nothing to do with growth rate. it is because of too high birth rate in pre WWII." Premiture deaths is a widely accepted explaination of the falling russian population. A high birth rate in the 1930's cannot cause a population decline in the 1990's. Seabhcán 13:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how early death could affect population? Early or later people are dying. But death rate is very high because of very high birth rate in pre WWII Russia. In average there was 6-10 children in family comparing to 0-2 now. That was culture for thousand years. This part of it, not saved however. Mid 90's was turned point. Elk Salmon 21:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
More people born in the 30's grow up and have more children in the 60's, who by the 90's have have had thier children. We aren't talking about absolute numbers of people dying but precentages and rates. The life expectancy of a Russian male was above 65 in the 1980's and it dropped to 55 in the 1990's. Also the birth rate dropped. The candle is being burned from both ends. Seabhcán 21:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
They did grew up for sure. But they produced much less children. As I said it was usually with 5-10 children in family in pre-war and 2-4 after and 0-2 now. There was no such drop of life expectancy of. It was droped from 62 to 59. Elk Salmon 19:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish-EE relation articles

Your recent edit on the Polish-Soviet War is basically vandalism. Please be more careful. This is a FA article, and the result matter has been a subject of a significant debate on the article's talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No man. Since views on who won this war is disputable and totally inacceptable on each sides I left only link to this statement, because all this statement is pretty big to fit into table. You, beeing Pole and administrator should not be biased. Elk Salmon 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin divs of Moscow

Hi, Elk Salmon! Just wanted to let you know that I reverted the Administrative divisions of Moscow back to the "city of Zelenograd" version. The reason for my revert is the fact that the article is based on OKATO, not on the information from the adm. divisions themselves. While OKATO may be occasionally inaccurate, it's the document which describes the administrative division structure of Russia. As per revision 94/2005, Moscow's okrug 45 272 is called "Город Зеленоград" (the city of Zelenograd). If it was renamed, I'll make the changes to the article as soon as OKATO is updated. Please let me know if you have further questions and thanks for trying to help out!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Juridically city is a federal status by OKATO. But for Moscow juridically it is district.Elk Salmon 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "juridically city is a federal status by OKATO". OKATO is a federal document, that's true. OKATO also does describe Zelenograd as a district of Moscow, not as a separate city. However, in doing that it still refers to it as "the city of Zelenograd". If Moscow legislative documents refer to the city as "Zelenogradsky district", then I am sure it is only a matter of time until OKATO catches up with that definition. I am sure that you know that while OKATO is updated quite periodically, it can still lag local legislation by several months (Perm Krai is a good example of that).
Perhaps if this matter is of great importance to you, you could mention it in the article on Zelenograd itself? I'd much rather prefer to keep the "Administrative divisions" article from the federal standpoint, if only for consistency and the ease of maintenance.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is mayor decree on symbolics of ZelAO. Moscow uses ZelAO name. But for Federals it is city. However it is often using in addresses city of zelenograd as subdivision of zelao, aling with kryukovo etc. But OKATO is just classifier of address. It is what should be on letters and official federal documents. Also. According to decree of 1963 City of Zelenograd taken status of city. It wasn't cancelled. So OKATO don't really showing federal of view. OKATO shows Zelenograd as administrative district of Moscow, but it has status of city. Elk Salmon 23:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
True, but that's not my point. My point is that the Administrative division of Moscow article is written from the OKATO standpoint. It (and the other articles in the series) is not based on the local legislation. The finer details should be in the corresponding articles (such as Zelenograd), not in the general overview. Are you OK with that? If not, why? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Moscow version of reading OKATO is Zelenograskiy. Link. My point is let Moscow decide how to call their districts. OKATO is federal classifier... Elk Salmon 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not disagree :) I merely point out that the Admin divisions series is based on OKATO (which, by the way, is not a prescriptive, but a descriptive document). Can you accept that and leave the article in its current state? I have no objections whatsoever if the other name is mentioned (and/or used as a primary name) in the article on Zelenograd or elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is updates to law of territorial division of moscow. It is clearly says Zelenogradskiy Administrativniy Okrug Elk Salmon 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Like I said before, I do believe you and the sources you cite. Like I also said before, the admin divs articles series is based on OKATO, not on local legislation; this is for consistency purposes only. If you are capable of producing similar series based on the information that comes directly from the federal subjects, by all means go ahead and create it. I do not have access to that kind of information, which is why I stuck with OKATO in the first place.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Russia

Please check Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board more often. Many articles could benefit from your input. Cheers, Ghirla | talk 14:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:City hall 01.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:City hall 01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo has been taken by friend long time ago and he sent me byu email. He said me to be freehand to post it everywhere I need.Elk Salmon 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, but did your friend actualy make it. Looks like some some kind of promo picture by the contractor, but some kind of source to verify that would be nice. --Sherool (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Be it rendering it will not has any copyright. But this is photo and it was taken on MIPIM 2005 exhibition. Author said me to do everything i need with this picture. Elk Salmon 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Aaah I see now, it's a photo of a scale model from an exchibition. Sorry about that, for a while there I though it was a computer generated 3D model from the architects :-O Fair enough, I have added the info to the image, please double check and see if I got it right. Please take care to include as much relevant information to images you upload in the future, it helps prevent this kind of misunderstandings. Sorry for your trouble, and thanks for clearifying the status of the image. --Sherool (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Line infobox

Sorry I removed them, line articles were nicely arranaged and now they look compleately screwed up. Instead maybe careate a footer template, but no need to ruin the arrangement of the articles.--Kuban Cossack 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Be it so nicely arranged i would not adding infobox. Current arragment is very bad. 1. Too much of tables. 2. Common figures hidden deeply in text. I moved common figures into infobox and map into normal arragment instead of bad looking popup. Elk Salmon 00:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

All of the information is, oddly enough repeated in the aritcle, so in retrospect I cannot even see the use of the infobox (especially with things like miles distance). Common figures can be added by editing the lead. The current arrangement is actually very nice as it provides all of the relevant information. Now a footer line template IS needed. --Kuban Cossack 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done:Template:Moscow Metro Lines--Kuban Cossack 00:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
no no no. no quick list of rolling stock (i see it as important thing, btw for future - there should be articles for vagons). no route length in miles as well, while this is important for people who are not from metric world... Elk Salmon 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestely is that important for an average reader? There is a subsection on each article about rolling stock and the depot, no need to repeat its contents.--Kuban Cossack 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PSW

If you think the PSW article's outcome is questionable, what would you say of "Battle of Volodarka" article of that war? If you have patience to read its talk page discussion, feel free to share your thoughts there. Thanks, --Irpen 04:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More image license stuff

Image:2599.jpg is not properly tagged, there is no indication that the copyright holder allows anyone to do anyting with the image, better use a fair use claim on this one. --Sherool (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

reverted. the source exactly says what type of license. Elk Salmon 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Three Station Square

Hi, Elk Salmon. You live in Moscow, do you not? Could you perhaps help us out with this, please? We are having hard time determining whether the news about renaming the square were a hoax. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was renamed. Elk Salmon 19:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Good to know. I posted some additional questions at Talk:Three Station Square; it'd be great if you could answer them when you have a moment. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

About polls in Wikipedia

Many Wikipedians agree that polls are to be used when there has already a great deal of discussion on the talk page. Georgia guy 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

still it will not help readers, who consider light metro as light rails. Elk Salmon 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, do you know enough about polls in Wikipedia?? Please check out whatever section of the style guidelines you think is appropriate. Georgia guy 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Poll isn't really necessary in this way - 3 users, where at least one more care about design of table... Elk Salmon 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, just wait until more users here about this. Georgia guy 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
At least one voted already with wrong comment. Number 12 is not correcting, but true phisical index number. Elk Salmon 08:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

Done. Please let me know when you are in agreement so the article can be unprotected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:50, 10 June 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?); 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it's very far away from any consensus. I'm trying to reach it from several sides. But still some people reject any changes and hardly protecting old version, which is, obviously, not accurate. We keep talking. Elk Salmon 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro lines table

Please create what you think is the most logical version of the Moscow Metro lines table at User:Elk Salmon/Moscow Metro Lines table. Georgia guy 19:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

but for what? there is metro talk page. so better to have it there... Elk Salmon 21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Sources

Why did you remove these sources from the Moscow article? And do you have another alternative to having links to translation pages? I see from your userpage that you're fluent in Russian, but not everyone is. As this is the English Wikipedia, it is preferable to use sources in English, or at the very best find English translations of sources. joturner 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, please read carefuly my comment. This table is on en wiki Moscow Metro page. This is first. Second. Please do not post links to online translators, based on systrans because they significantly changing meaning of words. You can use only Russian translator.ru. But post short link near of original link in the reference. Elk Salmon 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a table on Moscow Metro page, but that's not a reliable source. We can't cite information from another Wikipedia article. Second, the (as I said, approximate) translation provides enough information to support the claim made in the article. I don't know what Russian translator.ru is and it doesn't appear to be a working website.
Also, you asked (albeit in an edit summary) whether I'm going to add references to every statement in the article. No, I'm not, but is that a problem? Adding references adds credibility to the article. Adding references to every statement would be wonderful (although also quite a bit of work). Removing valid references, on the other hand, serves no purpose. joturner 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya

Please, do not go over board over the external links there. Though I agree that Kavkaz Center is a website glorifying terrorism (perhaps worth an article on its own), putting Prague Watchdog and yes, Chechen Press (the mouthpiece of the Umarov government) in the same Al Qaeda bag, is counterproductive to the point you want to make. I am sure we are actually on the same wave length on this issue, so let's both keep up the good work.--Pan Gerwazy 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

I opened a Mediation Cabal case regarding the issue over the sources in the Moscow article. Contribute to the discussion at your leisure. joturner 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please accept or reject the comprimise I offered on the cabal case page. joturner 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This case is now in mediation, so you could join the discussion on forming the consensus, to prevent future disagreements about the issue. CP/M 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; please join on the discussion, so this issue can be settled quickly. joturner 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
later, i have no time now for long discussions. on a days. Elk Salmon 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Elk, please come to the MedCab case. It's not arbitration, just an accepted way to resolve disputes. If there's no response from you, I'll assume you are not interested in the matter and suggested compromise will be accepted as a guideline for the article. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have not finished comments for refs yet. So later. Elk Salmon 09:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule

I know you're aware of the three-revert rule, but I shall remind you. Regarding Moscow Metro:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. joturner 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's allowed to revert vandalism endless number of times. So your note is useless. Elk Salmon 07:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of Moscow

Please vote to save the gallery: Talk:Moscow--Nixer 20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Three-Revert Rule Again

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Final warning, Elk. Please stop. -- joturner 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sasha already made 3 reverts today to old edit. While me was doing reverts to new edits, not to old. And please - stop using my talk page. Use MM talk page. Elk Salmon 23:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation for Moscow Metro

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- joturner 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat again. Stop hiding under threats. Second table is already on MM page. Its consistence is under discussion. Elk Salmon 10:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a threat; it doesn't accuse you or anybody else of doing anything wrong. It is standard procedure to notify all parties mentioned in a request for mediation. As you'll notice by looking at the request, I contacted four other people involved in the article. Please indicate agreement or disagreement with the request for mediation on the request page. -- joturner 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ man, just accept the damn mediation request, what are you so afraid of? Let's get the ball rolling here. Yet another user has agreed on table 2, btw. lensovet 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Знаешь Элк тут я полностью согласен, ну нельзя так за яйца кота тянуть. Самое главное, что от этого ты выиграешь? Время? Look at it this way if you do not participate, the mediation will continue without you. And we will make our most to take your opinion, but as your absense will not allow you to defend it. Once we arrive at a consensus there, пиши пропало, since your table will be taken down, and then your reverts will be treated as vandalism with appropriate sanctions taken against you. IMHO, you have quite a bit more to gain out of the mediation, as in some cases these are your last chances to somehow incorporate your opinion on the matter. Подумал бы своей упрямой головой. --Kuban Cossack 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A note once again - #2 is what we have already in the article. Question is in position of columns. Elk Salmon 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

О блин мастер! Maybe then we're using table 1, only with one of the columns removed? If we're changing the order of the columns, then it's not table 2. Хватит шлангом прикидоватся. lensovet 15:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

answered

--Yurik 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Billionaires in Moscow

Hello, do you know the number of billionaires in Moscow? I would like to update List of cities with the most billionaires with an accurate Moscow figure.--Old Guard 10:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment Involving You

A request for comment has been opened regarding your conduct at Moscow Metro. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elk Salmon and, if you want, enter a response in the #Response section. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not. Until you normally join into discussion without hidings under polls, mediations, comments etc. There is MM talk page. Talk should be there. You just seems reject to do it. So I reject to enter to your useless excuses... Elk Salmon 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're referring to; I am indeed paying attention to Talk:Moscow Metro. The order of the columns is a rather trivial issue, and I (and apparently many others) have yet to understand why you have such a strong preference for your order. -- tariqabjotu 01:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really vandalizing :)

Hi, I had removed the listing of the EU from the page - List of countries by GDP (nominal)- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) because I feel that it is inaccurate to list the EU here as it is a "...an intergovernmental and supranational union..."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union), not a country as the table is labeled, and in addition no other federations/confederations/international organizations are indicated. Would you not agree?

regards, Kirk

It is a political/economical organisation with own budget and legislative and executive powers. Officially it is not a country, therefore does not have an index, but presented in the list. Elk Salmon 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Global city

Why the revert? On my browser the current (tabulated) version compresses all the text into a tiny little stirp down the left hand side with a huge great white space in the middle. Removing the table solves this problem. --Stemonitis 07:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You browser (Opera 9 as i checked) seems to have huge bug of render engine. Just use another browser. Firefox 1-3 and IE 6 and 7 works ok. Try to report Opera developers if you complete fan of this browser. May be they will resolve the problem.
As of no table - it makes article looking completely screw up. Follow Global City talk page. [1]. Elk Salmon 08:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, my version works fine in all browsers (Mozilla, IE, Opera); I see nothing screwed up. Trying to get the browser "fixed" seems a mite extreme when we could just fix the page! --Stemonitis 08:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have linked you discussion about version you trying to make. It was exist before. And it is screw up article. As of opera bug - just use another browser for now and report to developers. Elk Salmon 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the problem. I really can't. I've looked at the table-free version in IE, in Mozilla, in Opera, even in Lynx (!), and they all look fine to me. The only difference is that the table screws up the formatting for Opera users. I'm changing it back until I see some evidence that the table-free version actually causes any problems. --Stemonitis 09:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Reverted as formatting is messed up now. Please follow the link given above. There is explanation what is messed up. Elk Salmon 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Added width to bypass Opera 9 bug. Elk Salmon 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

== Your removal of the section from Moscow ==http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elk_Salmon&action=edit

Moved to Talk:Moscow page.

Re:

You have not yet proved why the Politkovskaya rally is not relevant to the article. According to all news agencies, the demonstration was a protest against Russian-Georgian tensions and the journalist's murder. I'm afraid you are trying to suppress the data which is properly referenced. Anyway, I'm tired of this article and I'm not inclined to engage in edit wars. Be it as you wish. --Kober 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cease removing images and POV pushing on the article. This will be considered as vandalism and POV pushing. Ldingley 14:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC) If you about a photo of possibly faked paper then see talk page of the article. It's explained there. Elk Salmon 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

You recently reverted one of my accidental edits, and called it vandalism. I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Vandalism where it states: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Since this is obviously not the case, I will revert your warning to my talkpage. Sfacets 10:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

nevermind the word. it's my default phrase i add to reverts of unaccounted edits from auto complete. i havn't said anything about vandalism on your talk page. just an attention on unaccounted edit. Elk Salmon 11:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't throw casual accusations of vandalism against your opponents. This is considered incivil and may lead to admin action. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course i don't do it when it's clearly not vandalism. Elk Salmon 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, please consult WP:3RR. You will be blocked from editing if you make more than three reverts within 24 hours. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverting of vandalism is an exception. Sources have not been provided. Therefore it does vandalism. Elk Salmon 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't confuse content disputes with vandalism. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Pushing personal point of view with ignoring source request is vandalism. Elk Salmon 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics

Elk, this vote of yours is a bit late; the voting took place in March 2006. You might, however, be interested in participating in a related discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters which is currently active. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC) oops, haven't noticed. i have followed to the poll from active discussion. by the way. may be to make a new poll since the question is open now again? Elk Salmon 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it is going to end in voting anyway. I hope to see the policy amended this time, not just to have a bunch of opinions collected in one place. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia

Hey Elk, welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your input on the usage of ISO and other date formats in the Russia and other articles. You should realize that the ISO format is relatively new and is being applied more and more by Wikipedians, especially for infobox dates, as awareness grows, since it is relatively compact and language-agnostic. I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting other people's hard work in trying to make Wikipedia better. I'm sure, also, that you realize the irony of an obvious non-native writer of English in instructing others on how to best use the language!  ;) As a compromise, if you agree to stop reverting my edits, as well as those of others, I'll leave the Russia article to you and others! Thanks in advance.... Albanaco 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you offer me a deal? Well. As I said i'm not welcome ISO dates. It is an encyclopedia, not a technical documentation. Anyway i could agree to the deal with my additions. Do you ISO dates only in text that was written by you from zero. Do not edit texts that was written by others. Plus, please do not change dates to ISO in infoboxes. Elk Salmon 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Elk, I'm not offering you a deal, so much as an understanding! Please note that ISO dates have nothing to do with technical vs other kinds of documentation, as they are increasingly being used, especially on the web, as a standard date format, as awareness of the new format grows (please refer to the Wikipedia article ISO 8601). With respect to your command to "not edit texts [sic] that was written by others", I quote the disclaimer Wikipedia always puts at the bottom of pages being edited: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Of course, that is not to say that vandalism or unreasonable amounts of retreading are warranted, either, but change over time is natural, and the collective understanding of what is best is always going to be in flux, and Wikipedia encourages such change, at the risk of undesirable edits, which are usually short-term (and corrected by the community). Albanaco 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

sovetskaya rossiya

hi. once i have read it was official organ of supreme soviet, then i read it was the official organ of the central committe of the soviet communist party. so what do you say? Superzohar 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

explain please. if you talking just about a name - it wasn't an organ. it was a republic after russian empire, and then a republic within ussr. Elk Salmon 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Łódź

Please don't remove the image of the Łódź ghetto from the article about the city. 40% of the city's inhabitants died in the Holocaust, after being held in unspeakable conditions in the Ghetto. The article about the city and in particular its history section should prominently reflect that. Balcer 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please you do not remove previous photo (liberation). It is very relevant for the WWII paragraph. Elk Salmon 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not that relevant, since there is nothing in the photo that recognisably places it in Łódź. But fine, I can accept your version, even though with 3 photos things are a bit cluttered. Balcer 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Do Not Edit Discussion Pages Except To Add Comments

Hey Elk, I understand that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, so you might not realize that it is very uncool to make any edits to the discussion pages of fellow Wikipedians other than to add new comments. For example, to avoid discussion pages getting too long, it is natural to clean out old messages periodically (much like emptying out an email inbox). Please do not revert such edits by others (unless you wouldn't mind others doing the same to your discussion page). Thank you in advance. Albanaco 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Elk Salmon 08:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm not all that sure on how uploading pictures works. Can you explain how all of that works, if you are any good with uploading pictures? Thank you. DJDavis92 03:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been already uploaded a pic to wiki. Just uploading is not only thing you should do. You should also post a type of license for the pic. Note that copyright reserved pictures are not allowed. You can find a list of licenses here at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags. Elk Salmon 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Global city

For what it's worth, I suggest you don't edit the invisible header for another 5 hours, as it would constitute a WP:3RR violation. If you can convince me that there is consensus on the version you prefer, I'll revert to it myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

CfD: Subways

Regarding Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_2#Category:Subways I'd like to point out my suggestion to rename the category to Category:Underground metro systems and ask if you'd be interested in changing your nomination accordingly (or suggesting a different name that still captures the subterranean nature of subways). Thanks! --Bill Clark 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there are many metro systems that are not really underground. Look, LUL are surface for over half of its way, paris metro has many surface sections as well. there are no much really underground systems. There is subway/metro/underground mean a term with same meaning. But if you say underground metro system - underground will tranlates into real word meaning. May be just adding also underground systems with redirect will be good... Elk Salmon 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyscrapers

Elk Salmon, please stop reverting list to the 140 or 150m mark. List (100m) is incomplete but write in arcicle "This is an incomplete list....." beside list to the 140 or 150m is neither complete. 150m mark is a common mark for defining the skyscraper? This is hoax. Please give source else delete this fragment. LUCPOL 18:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

keep talk at User_talk:LUCPOL#List_of_European_Skyscrapers and at Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Europe. Elk Salmon 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

global city

Try to avoid getting into a petty revert war. Arthur Rubin clearly has some sort of justification for his edits, and it would be better if you could attempt to reach some sort of constructive compromise rather than simply reverting each other's edits. DJR (T) 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actively reverting vandalism? More like actively creating vandalism. I've tried to WP:AGF, but you seem unable to recognize that the GaWC papers do not support your assertions, even if GaWC is the only detailed source of lists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

comment at User talk:Djr_xi

Copied from User talk:Djr_xi: You are not a professional researcher to say what is correct and what is not. You basing on the own feeling. This term is not about average incomes or level of life. It is much more deeper. I repeat what was said already by several other wikipedians. You are absolutely free to add another ranks and cocepts, if you have any trustable source to another professional research. Therefore is nothing to dispute. Elk Salmon 07:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this directed at me, or at another user's comment on my talk page? If the latter, please note that it is highly irregular for a user to correspond with another user via a third party user talk page, especially without the knowledge/permission of the user try to make it clear who you are addressing. If the former, then you should consider reading WP:AGF and WP:EQ and perhaps consider whether adopting a less confrontational outlook to the article could lead to better results in the long term. DJR (T) 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
hey. since he posted on your talk page, i have answered him there as well. Elk Salmon 11:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Emporis. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Gzkn 02:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Global city numbering

I'm uncertain what your issue is with the numbering of certain lists in this article, but please discuss it on the article talk page rather than reverting and using HTML markup. Remember too that we are not copying content from the GaWC report - it's a source. Thanks/wangi 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

We also do not setup own point of vew on how is provided source should be read. It is WP:OR. Lists and ranks are always should be equal to source. HTML is used in the way that wiki codes does not provide full functioning of ol html attributes like roman numbering. Elk Salmon 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I concur, in part. However, if you insist on matching the lower case roman numerals, you must also insist on matching the line breaks. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Global City

Please sort out the problems you're having on the Global City article in the talk page instead of edit warring on the article. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 02:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please respond on the talk page of the article? If you don't, I'll simply resort to blocking people who continue with the unproductive edit warring as protection should be getting people to discuss, and that of course wouldn't end well for anyone :P. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've been posted there few days ago in the section above. Elk Salmon 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request regarding Emporis "controversy" section

Montalto has requested informal mediation regarding the Emporis "Controversy" section and has identified Gothicform, MatthieuN, UnitedPakistan, Elk Salmon, and 86.6.160.50 as involved parties.

I've tried to summarize the dispute on the mediation page. If you are interested in mediation, please let me know either on the mediation page or on the Emporis talk page -- I have some ideas that I think may be helpful to resolve the dispute constructively.

Thanks -- I'm looking forward to working with you all. TheronJ 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Caucasus and Europe

Hi, if you look at a topographic map of the world, you will see that the Caucasus mountains are much more closely connected to the Asian mountains of Turkey and Iran than they are to other European mountains, and that they are therefore, physically, part of the Asian continent. To reach European mountain ranges from the Caucasus, you have to travel a long distance and descend almost to sea level, by contrast the Greater Caucasus are connected to the Lesser Caucasus by a short distance and a 943m pass, and the Lesser Caucasus are part of the same high area that includes Turkey and Iran. Viewfinder 15:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Viewfinder, please withstand from WP:OR. Border between Asia and Europe is going by the water divide in the Caucasian and Ural mountain ranges. And not based on the personal feeling of land masses. Check the Europe article. Elk Salmon 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that you can "withstand" from OR. You mean "refrain" perhaps? Anyway, I reject your OR claim. The view that the Caucasus are not, geographically, part of the European continent is not my personal OR; it is frequently put forward. Examine the edit history of Mont Blanc, especially [2]. The footnote should remain, although the wording is debatable. As a matter of interest, the Caucasian water divide does not define political Europe; Georgia is part of political Europe. There is no fixed view about the extent of geographical Europe, but the Caucasus mountains are much more closely linked to Asia than Europe. Viewfinder 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

meta and ru-sib

Could you please confirm your identity with the user m:User:Elk Salmon in Meta? It is needed to prevent sockpuppetry on the vote page m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. --Yms 14:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, it me. Elk Salmon 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Good Evening!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#RUSSIA_AND_ASIA Na etoy stranitse proishodit nastoyasheye bezumiye... Ya vsego lish hotel udalit shablon "Countries in Asia", oni yego vernuli, ya plunul na eto delo i ostavil vsio kak yest, a oni razveli kakoy-to zhutkiy flame, Proshu Vas popitatsia eto ostanovit', tak kak etu stranitsu prosmatrivayut 1000 chelovek v den'... YA OBESHIAYU, CHTO YA BOLSHE NIKOGDA NICHEGO TAM ISPRAVLYAT NE BUDU, CHESTNOYE SLOVO!KLYANUS!Tolko pomogite! Uuu87 02:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

FSU Metro Project

As you do write edits on Moscow Metro then perhaps this might interest you...--Kuban Cossack 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for Speed XI

I wonder: How can using the phrase "According to" and "in fact" together be non-NPOV? I'm only citing what the source says, and it says that the rumour is in fact denied. --MrStalker 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"According to" is neutral phrase, because it is put all sources to one level. "In fact" is a hard stick to point of view on the case and saying "only this is correct". There should be no such phrases. Content should be neutral. Elk Salmon 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I wrote "Fact is the rumour has been denied by EA", I would agree with you. But it says "According to NFS-Planet the rumour is in fact denied". I.e. according to them it is in fact denied. --MrStalker 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't understand. It's not "in fact". Because there are other sources that provide another information. It will be prejudicing to sources. Use according to, instead of in fact. There is a huge difference between "in fact denied" and "denied, according to". Elk Salmon 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. But according to them, it is in fact denied. According to them it's a fact. --MrStalker 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No. "In fact" is not a neutral phrase. Elk Salmon 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, yes, according to them it's a fact. --MrStalker 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So left it on their site. Wiki is neutral. Elk Salmon 01:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever... --MrStalker 08:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Why have you removed the replacement map twice from this article?Anwar 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very uninformative. And leads users to disbelief and misunderstanding. It's ok if you want to make a map of relativity, but fill countries with solid colors. Elk Salmon 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2599.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2599.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything is there. Please, read the Licensing section and the talk page carefully. Elk Salmon 13:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2599.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2599.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.∆ 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

I'd appreciate an explanation for why you reverted both my changes to this article, since both of my changes were made well within policy. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Because you distort the meaning of them. Beautiful is not about defining them as beautiful, please read the sentence carefully. The section you targeted also does not contain any trifles, but useful information.
2. Please, use Talk:Moscow_Metro to consult other active editors of the article, before making significant updates. Elk Salmon 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to 1., I would point out that I did not distort the meaning of anything at all. I read the sentence carefully initially, and have done so again yet I continue to fail to see what you're getting at with 'beautiful is not about defining them as beautiful'. The word beautiful is an adjective, and you are using it to describe something. You are therefore ascribing this the character of beauty, and are so defining it as beautiful. Please clarify what you mean by this.
You are saying something is beautiful, that's fine. However, this isn't a neutral point of view, and in any case is subjective to the extent that adding a citation would be meaningless, hence I feel the article is better without it. As I mention citations, it's also worth nothing that if you're saying "it is well known", then this would also benefit from one.
The point of WP:TRIVIA is not to remove 'trifles', but to ensure that articles are being treated sensibly. In any case, I actually agree with you: there is useful, notable and encyclopaedic material in there. Where we differ is that I believe it should be distributed better. The section is entitled "interesting facts [...]". Again, this is POV — but, more to the point, it is also a collection of unrelated material which would be better served either integrated into another, more fitting, section of the article, or placed in a new section, again titled appropriately.
Point 2 is utterly irrelevant. I always discuss edits which I believe are likely to raise conflict or involve considerable changes to the article. My changes were not in any way a significant alteration of the article: I removed one word and added a tag indicating that it may be appropriate for information to be separated out a little better. These are not changes that warrant a notice on the talk page; or rather, shouldn't be. However, as you object, I'm discussing this with you in an attempt to understand why you are so hostile to my changes.
I've watched this page for a response. If we can't come to an agreement (and a consensus can't be reached on the talk page, which is where this might well be better placed), then I will seek a third opinion and yield to what they suggest. I still believe that my edits were fair and reasonable, and perfectly acceptably explained. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please read the sentence carefully. It says contain and examples. It doesn't define automatically which one, so everything said on this could be denied in a row. It's just very politcorrect phrase. Elk Salmon 12:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted Editing

I refer to your recent removal of information from the Moscow Metro article. The reasoning given did not remotely relate to the removal. Thus I consider it vandalism of which I note you have been frequently warned. You don't own the article and you are not a self appointed editor. If you have an issue, use the discussion page - that's what it is there for. I have already put something there.

Don't respond to this user page, because I will have different IP address next time. 20.133.0.14 14:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to notice you. It's your edit was vandalism as it contained obviously falsified dates. Also it is contained distorted information that was called recent speaking about events happened 16 years ago. Elk Salmon 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It contained incorrect dates, not falsified dates - that doesn't make it vandalism. Also, it's not entirely historical since it covers up to the present day. You somehow seem to think that you own the article - you don't!20.133.0.14 10:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
But there are no dramatical growth of price since 2000-2001. Russia has a bit larger inflation then other countries. But prices going up strictly once per year and it is a preannounced event. It's not a dramatical growth, it's normal growth. It's ok to say about it in history, but ticketing is about present situation: present prices and present plans. It's not WP:OWN as the history section was not made by me. And the structure was made by several other members, basely on agreements. Also, please register to own a name which other users can relate to you. Elk Salmon 09:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Moscow metro map

Hi! You've reinserted the official map of Moscow metro in the Moscow article. This map was continiously deleted from that article because of copyright issues (there was even a little edin war) so I replaced it with a free alternative though in German. Now you've restored the originad map. I am afraid it may lead to deletion of the map once again.--Dojarca 13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been no any copyright problems. It's official and they allow it to be published everywhere with attribution. Elk Salmon 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see the edit history of the Moscow article. The image was constantly removed from that article (not from Wikipedia) with reasoning it is not free and not necessary for that article (and there can be made a free replacement).--Dojarca 13:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's free. Period. Elk Salmon 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Then could you change liense to "attribution"?--Dojarca 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Summary explains how it can be used. It doesn't limit anything. But only ask to mention where it was taken from. Let it be copyrighted, because officially license is not explained. Elk Salmon 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If the use is allowed, there is a number of attreibution-only licenses, otherwise the copyright status is unclear and the image can be deleted. Anyway the corrent fair-use rationale is not valid as there can be created qa free replacement. Please clarify the license, otherwise it will heppen again: [3]--Dojarca 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add my opinion – MM map in the german article is plain awful, it is not a real alternative.--Sascha. 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why i have changed it to the picture that was uploaded by Flrn. Mosmetro clearly states it can be done everything with image unless link to them is provided. So may be to change license to one of CC? However. I have self-made map [4]. It's whole in vectors. I could update it and upload. But I made it in LUL design, so I think it's not really good to propagandize LUL design, when MM has own. Elk Salmon 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, we cannot place CC there, but we can {{Attribution}}. I can see nothing by your link, sorry but if you have a self-made one, it probably will protect us from wiki-censors.--Dojarca 07:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

End of hostilites in World War II

the article end of World War II in Europe documents the messy end of the war, but the general end of hostilities was 23:01 CET as laid out in the German Instruments of Surrender. That was 00:01 9 May British Double Summer time. But do you have any evidence that Germany was on German Summer Time on the 8 May 1945?

There was an article on the net at one point that said that all of the Allied European Theater of Operations operated on British Time, but I can no longer find it. It would make sense that the end of hostilities was one minute past midnight local time, and not 23:01, but I have not been able to find any documents to support the proposition. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking to find out backward. I didn't found any evidence that Germany was not switching to summer time in 1945. But it was on summer time in 1941, when Nazi Germany attacked USSR, because Moscow was 1 hour ahead of Berlin at that moment. Before 1981 Moscow was on decree time - full year one hour ahead of its time zone (GMT +2) without any changes during summer. Only in 1981 Moscow switched to GMT+3 and introduced summer GMT+4 time. Also, a first minute of the new day sounds reasonable to me, unlike 01:01. Elk Salmon 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
To work out Moscow time one has to take the time from CET (GMT+1) because that was what was in the surrender document and it was 23:01 8th May 1945. So if I understand you information then that was 00:01 9th May, Moscow time (GMT+2). If you have a document that specifies that the decree was in force during WWII then please footnote in in the end of World War II in Europe.
I'm not sure what date the Germans changed onto summer time in 1945 of if they did. The British BDST (GMT+2) in 1945 started on 2 April.
BTW in the First World War, hostilities ended for Britain at 11:00, 11 November GMT (and is commemorated as such in the Commonwealth -- eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month) but 12:00 CET for the Germans. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There was no any special time during WWII. Decree time was in action from 1936 to 1981. Before 1936 MSK was GMT+2. From 1936 to 1981 Moscow was in 1 hour ahead of its time zone. In 1981 MSK was changed to GMT+3 along with introduction of MSD (GMT+4). Anyway it very important due to NPOV to state 9 may according to winner's time. Elk Salmon 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not considered important in Britain (a winner) where the end of the war is remembered as 8 May (the day the party was held) and the US was also a winner where it was 8 May. Also it is mentioned that the time was 9 May in the USSR. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

But due to NPOV it is important to indicate main date by winner POV (USSR). Elk Salmon 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOVMETRO

Привет, when the project was launched back in January, I thought you would be one of the few people who would make an active part of it. However at present the future of the project is at question due to its total lack of activity. I therefore ask that you join the project and help us to make it what we originally hoped it would become. --Kuban Cossack 10:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Talk archives for User:Elk Salmon (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 >