User talk:Ezhiki/2008

Sorry, already reverted. I thought you'd deleted some relevant information. My bad. Rsazevedo ^msg 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Figured that much. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "support" instead of "oppose" at WP:MoS, or am I misunderstanding? People opposed to spaced em-dashes are all voting "Support". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's really screwy! Here is what the proposal says:

I now propose that we change the guidelines to favour only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes: spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, consistently in any given article.

Since I am not in favor of having "only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes" (because I am in favor of only one kind—unspaced), I voted "oppose".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you're not on the side of the opposition, then. The opposition wants 3 kinds: spaced and unspaced em-dashes, and spaced en-dashes. Do you really want to get rid of all en-dashes on Wikipedia? I haven't heard anyone else suggest that, ever. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I most certainly don't want that :) However, by the looks of it, I can't vote "support", because that wouldn't be what I want either (once again, I want unspaced em-dashes and unspaced en-dashes). Any tips? Perhaps it's not too late to split the proposal into several and sort existing votes into the corresponding buckets?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm really not following you. You're right about the proposal, it says: "two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes: spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes". You also want two kinds: "unspaced em-dashes and unspaced en-dashes". You're saying you do not support ... is that because you want people to be able to mix up both different kinds in the same article? I think all the supporters could live with that, if you explain what you mean. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but same here—I'm still not sure what so confusing about my reasoning? The proposal calls for spaced en-dashes—and that's the part I don't support (I want them unspaced). Since the whole proposal is a logical conjunction, disagreement with any part of it would result in an automatic "oppose". Perhaps I'd better withdraw my vote altogether, because by the looks of it I ain't gonna get what I want no matter how I vote. Which reminds me of something :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I get it, but I don't think the WT:MoS folks will (without more explanation after your vote). I don't see any need for you to withdraw your vote, but of course, as everywhere on Wikipedia votes per se don't count, it's the reason or support behind the vote. I have never seen a proposal to never allow spaces around en-dashes; all of the major style guides recommend it. That doesn't mean we have to, but it will look "professional" if you give your reason along with your vote. (Almost) no one will disrespect a valid reason, even if it's not a popular vote ... in fact, some folks (like me) really like seeing reasoned opposition, it forces everyone to be clear instead of just allowing them to say "I think this is the way it's done". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting consistency was my only reasoning. I realize that spaced ndashes are recommended by the style guides, but I could never force myself to see something like "1911 – 1925" as "professional". Anyway, I'll tweak my vote to "support", because, as you correctly pointed out, this would be closer to my preferences. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, by the way!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Any time, thanks for clarifying your position. Having more participants in WP:MoS discussions really does significantly improve the outcomes. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the zh-interwiki link at the Gorki disambiguation page. zh:高尔基 is a disambiguation page with 3 entries: Maxim Gorky, Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod) and Camillo Golgi (due to phonetic constraints in the Chinese language, words that are pronounced differently in English may be transliterated into the same characters). Even though "Gorki" can also be transliterated to the three characters, the links in the Gorki page have no corresponding links in the Chinese Wikipedia page. IMO, the link should be at the Gorky page, and I had moved it there. Cheers, Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen a disambiguation disrupted in such a way in good faith (which I do understand is the case now). Thanks for the link to the MOS, it is rather suprising to me; in any case I believe that the fact that Polish wikipedia has articles on those villages should be treated as confirming their notability and the right to "red-linkedness" in the meantime.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was as surprised as the next guy when I was pointed out that clause a while ago. I was even more surprised when I found out how many people it took for that clause to come into being. I do understand the intents behind the revision, and the only reason why I did not complain (apart from the lack of time) was because set index articles provided means to achieve pretty much the same result as dabs with red links had allowed for before the above MOSDAB revision. It is still highly annoying, though, especially considering how no one bothered to verify just how many pages would be harmed by overzealous dab-cleaners hell-bent on sticking to the letter of the guideline at the expense of everything else. Oh well... I'm going to leave the Górki situation to you (there's not much I could do beyond bringing the page to the attention of Polish editors anyway); I trust you'll take good care of it from now on. Just don't let it get merged into Gorki :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a modification here. As to the letter of the law triumphing over the spirit, I have seen this happen elsewhere, alwways with bad results. Remember, though: WP:IAR is still a valid policy! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain it to the "cleaners". This is probably the tenth or so time I run into a situation like this, and every time it takes days and kilobytes of explanations until the opponents finally "get it" or label me as a nasty case and leave.

Anyway, thanks for submitting the modification proposal. Hopefully it'll get somewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen посоветовал передать

Не знаю или заинтересован, но нашел качественное описание здесь http://mion.isu.ru/pub/rasp/

Всего хорошего--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо, но поскольку я человек сугубо мирный, вопросы территориального деления занимают меня только в гражданском аспекте :) Однако, ссылка может оказаться интересной участнику Buckshot06, который специализируется как раз по вопросам военных округов. Я передам.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Ezhiki. However though I can read enough Russian to put this comment under the right heading, that's only because I now recognise specific military terms - I cannot understand whole webpages. However if Mrg3105 wants to do it, as he can read & speak Russian, I'll gladly assist with finishing touches if he wishes - I'll tell him that too. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, by the way, was looking at your userpage and saw you were the person responsible for the administrative divisions of Russian federal subjects in great detail. Thank you very much indeed.Thanks to you, I have a chance of linking the right village when I work with Soviet or Russian military formations rather than the wrong one - and there are often several potential wrong choices! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware that you don't know Russian (I guess I did not expect that from a person so interested in such a specific thing as Russian military districts!).

As for the administrative divisions, you are welcome. I'm glad someone finds that work useful :) Incidentally, if you ever stumble upon an ambigous name you can't resolve, you are very welcome to drop me a message, as the material I have so far added to Wikipedia accounts for only about 1% of what I have available. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, если вы не возражаете, мне было бы приятнее перейти на русский :) Первое, что я бы хотел узнать - это ваше личное мнение. Не как администратора Википедии, а как русского человека, отлично владеющего английским языком. Вот представьте себя жителем Ейска, ейчанином. Вас лично не коробила бы транслитерация "yeychanin"? Меня лично слово "Yeysk" просто вымораживает. Иначе как недоразумением я его назвать не могу. Неужели с учетом всех перечисленных доводов (не хочу лишний раз повторяться) вы не находите нелогичность использования слова "Yeysk"? Как администратор вы можете оставаться на своих "рубежах", пожалуйста, но мне интересно ваше мнение. Далее, (уже обращаюсь как к администратору), я не говорил, что "Yeisk" превращается в брэнд! Обратите внимание, что говоря о брэнде, название города я привел в кириллице. Тем не менее, вопрос об официальном англоязычном варианте названия города вскоре станет очень актуальным. И я хочу сделать всё возможное, чтобы не только сообщество англоязычной Википедии приняло "Yeisk" вместо ущербного "Yeysk", но и чтобы ведущие зарубежные бюро и издательства, выпускающие атласы и энциклопедии, перешли к этому названию. Не скрою, что у меня есть идея, и я собирался выйти на "The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use" и "U.S. Board on Geographic Names" с предложением рассмотреть этот вопрос. Но в каком-то смысле своей стойкостью вы оптимизма у меня поубавили :) Если так сложно доказать казалось бы очевидные вещи сообществу открытой энциклопедии, то что уж говорить об учёных мужах Оксфорда и Кембриджа?.. Тем не менее, я считаю, что здесь они допустили ошибку. Не специально, не по своей вине. Просто они бездумно применили "шаблон", "кальку", который заранее придумали. Но из любого правила всегда бывают исключения. Ейск является им. Не потому, что он какой-то особенный. А просто потому, что он единственный во всем мире начинает называться с сочетания букв "Ей"... --Yeisker (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Пожалуйста, могу и по-русски, мне не трудно. Начну, правда, не со своей личной точки зрения, а с описания одной очень распространённой ошибки, которую совершают многие из тех, кто здесь впервые (или новичок). Вообще, со списком этих ошибок и недоразумений можно ознакомиться вот тут, но в применении к нашей ситуации применимы вот эти: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (see also WP:NOR) и "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". На практике это означает то, что цель Википедии — это сбор и организация существующих знаний, а не продвижение новых концепций и идей и исправление ошибок (see also WP:V—"the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth). Новые идеи, какие бы замечательные они ни были, Википедией описаны не будут пока они не приобретут определённую степень значимости в реальном мире. Очень хорошо это иллюстрирует следующий пример — если бы Википедия существовала на заре зарождения телевидения, статьи о телевидении в ней (согласно существующим правилам) не появилось бы до тех пор, пока оно не вышло бы из экспериментальной фазы и стало фактом жизни.

Разумеется, всё вышесказанное относится в первую очередь к контенту, а не к правилам, регулирующим функционирование Википедии. Что касается собственно правил, то они устанавливаются сообществом в результате дискуссий и предложений, и их вполне возможно изменить, если они плохо работают в каких-либо ситуациях. Касательно WP:RUS, принятие его в форме минимизирующей правила основанные на личных пристрастиях и убеждениях участников было очень важной целью, нитью проходившей через все дискуссии. И разве это не логично? Если правило основано на системе, успешно использующейся в реальной жизни, направленной на ту же аудиторию, и не имеющей серьёзных недостатков, то зачем изобретать велосипед заново? Если у правил нет теоретической базы, то сегодня придёте вы и начнёте настаивать на том, что "Ейск" должен писаться как "Yeisk", завтра придёт ваш земляк и начнёт настаивать что нет, "Eisk" — это более правильно, а послезавтра ввалится поклонник ГОСТа, и скажет, что поскольку российское правительство официально использует ГОСТ, то "Jejsk" — это единственно правильное написание, а всё остальное ересь чистой воды. И все, между прочим, будут по-своему правы. Это, кстати, не теоретические рассуждения — до того как WP:RUS был принят в текущей форме с такими ситуациями приходилось встречаться чуть ли не каждый месяц (почитайте, например, дискуссии на WP:CYR, хотя это и далеко не вся картина). Всем угодить нельзя никогда, но стандартизация (любая!) по-крайней мере позволяет избежать ненужной мартышкиной работы в виде проверок и перепроверок всех возможных написаний каждого наименования. И это не праздные заботы — учитывая объём Википедии любое уменьшение объёмов такой работы приносит вполне ощутимые результаты, особенно в "российском секторе" английской Википедии, поскольку число участников в нём по очевидным причинам довольно ограниченно, при том что количество энциклопедического материала просто огромно.

Что касается моего личного мнения, то я считаю, что английская энциклопедия должна использовать английские же конвенции. Мы здесь всё-таки гости, пусть почётные и уважаемые, но не местные, и насаждать наши личные взгляды и пристрастия было бы просто верхом неуважения. Какие именно конвенции использовать мне, честно говоря, глубоко фиолетово, единственное, что имеет значение, это то, что они должны работать для целей написания энциклопедии и быть понятны/знакомы англоязычной аудитории. Если бы этой аудитории подошёл тот же ГОСТ, то мы бы сейчас спорили о том, почему статья про Ейск должна именоваться "Jejsk" :) Важно не забывать, что в английской Википедии то, как выглядит транслитерированное русское слово, важно для англичан, а не для русских. Если бы это была Википедия на английском языке, направленная на русскоязычную аудиторию (в целях изучения языка, например), то и аргументы в пользу выбора системы транслитерации были бы совсем другими. Я ответил на ваши вопросы? Если нет, с удовольствием продолжу эту дискуссию :)

Что касается петиции в BGN/PCGN, то почему бы и нет? Если вам вдруг удастся их (пере)убедить, и они пересмотрят правила, то это будет означать только то, что был найден более эффективный способ донести русские названия до англоговорящей аудитории. В этом случае и нам будет не грех пересмотреть наше руководство по романизации. Ввели же они интерпункт для "unusual Russian character sequences". Не забывайте только, что правила они тоже составляли для целей стандартизации, а не для максимально корректной передачи написания/произношения, поэтому минимизация количества исключений для них (как и для нас) будет, скорее всего, иметь более высокий приоритет.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Вот, что называется родной язык! Гораздо проще уловить степень того, насколько сильно ты надоел собеседнику :) Отвечая на вопрос "Я ответил на ваши вопросы?", скажу, что нет: не ответили. Вы не захотели (или не смогли) поставить себя на место жителя города Ейска, т.е. заинтересованного человека. Често говоря, переходя на русский язык, я надеялся найти в вас союзника хотя бы в отношении обращения в BGN/PCGN. Но фраза "глубоко фиолетово" очень хорошо проиллюстрировала вашу позицию по этому вопросу. От своего лица лишь добавлю, что я не считаю рассмотрение этой проблемы "верхом неуважения". Ещё большее удивление у меня вызвала фраза про "насаждение личных взглядов". К сожалению, вы не увидели моей точки зрения. Возможно, сказалось ваше многолетнее положение в статусте администратора. А может быть, дело в моём плохом английском... Who knows, who knows... --Yeisker (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ну, насчёт английского не прибедняйтесь — он у вас получше чем у некоторых :) Что касается отсутствия ответа на ранее заданный вопрос, то, как говорится, whoops. Отвлёкся на связанную тематику и пропустил самое главное. Извиняюсь.

В общем, что касается постановки себя в позицию жителя города, то мне, честно говоря, из этой позиции не совсем понятно, какая вам вообще разница как по-английски называют ваш город? Мне это чем-то напоминает нескончаемые попытки определённого сегмента наших украинских коллег переименовать Kiev в Kyiv (если дискуссия на WP:CYR показалась вам длинной, взгляните сюда и обратите внимание на архивы :)). С этим вопросом пропонентов переименования хотя бы можно понять — для них английское название Kiev воспринимается как наследие тяжёлого колониального прошлого, и эмоциональность вопроса перевешивает тот факт, что именно "Kiev" является устоявшимся названием города в английском языке. Ну а ейчанам-то какая разница? Вас волнует, что ваш город по-французски называется "Ieïsk", а по-корейски "예이스크"? Вам известны преценденты, когда англоязычный визитёр, ознакомившись с фактом того, что по-русски город называется "Ейск" сказал "gee, I wonder why the hell we call it 'Yeysk' in English and not 'Yeisk'"? Почему вас волнует, что англичане вдруг подумают, что буквы "y" в обеих позициях должны произноситься одинаково? В довольно распространённом междометии "yay", например, буквы "y" передают разные звуки, а "Yeysk" — довольно похожая фонетическая конструкция (я даже не затрагиваю того вопроса, что максимально точная передачи произношения/написания вообще не является задачей романизации). Русские и сами направо и налево перевирают английские названия (возьмите хотя бы тот же Вашингтон) — вам известны случаи, когда русскоговорящие американцы делали бы из этого трагедию в рувики? Объясните мне, пожалуйста, в чём заключается проблема? Зачем лечить исправную систему? Мне это искренне непонятно, и именно поэтому я упомянул "насаждение личных взглядов" и "персональные предпочтения" (это не камешек лично в ваш огород, а вообще по теме любви российских участников указывать англофонам какую именно систему стандартизации им "надо" использовать). Можете объяснить?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, если вы спросите, какой процент жителей города Ейска волнует этот вопрос, то я отвечу: "Наверное, ничтожный". Весьма сомневаюсь, что в Ейске найдется хоть один человек, который сидит днями и ночами и думает: "Ёлки-палки! Ну как же все-таки правильно романизировать название моего города?.." Лично меня этот вопрос интересовал и ранее. Удивление, недоумение, может быть даже обида - вот, какие чувства появлялись у меня, когда я вновь наталкивался на злополучное "Yeysk". Но по большому счету мне было все равно. Да мне, собственно, и сейчас все равно, какие там правила романизации используют в Англии. Давайте назовем проблему "Ейск: Yeisk or Yeysk?" полунаучным хобби :) Так будет проще понять суть моей мотивации. Вопрос этот действительно интересен. На самом деле, кроме Ейска незаслуженно "страдают" и такие города, как Копейск, Адыгейск, Алейск, Байкальск и др. Оказывается, что феномен буквы "Й" действительно заслуживает отдельного внимания и изучения. Вчера вот я нашел очень и очень любопытную ссылку - Загадка буквы Й. Надеюсь, что автор этого топика поможет приблизиться к разгадке этой злополучной буквы. Одно для меня очевидно на 100%: однозначно транслитировать букву "й" в "y" АБСОЛЮТНО НЕДОПУСТИМО. --Yeisker (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

А я всё-таки скажу, что это не абсолютно недопустимо, а полностью зависит от вкуса человека. Меня вот, например, написания типа "Alexei" и "Andrei" просто коробят чуть ли не с детства (вот, кстати, и ещё один ответ на ваш вопрос о моих личных предпочтениях). Если бы тот же BGN/PCGN изменил правило с "й в y" на "й в i", то мне лично это было бы довольно неприятно (хотя, опять-таки, с точки зрения стандартизации "глубоко фиолетово" — лишь бы было задокументировано и широко использовалось). В общем, закрывая (надеюсь) вопрос — если только не изменится система, на которой базируется WP:RUS, кардинальных изменений в нём ждать не стоит. Википедия, after all, is not an agent of change, but a tool documenting the state of the environment. Но поговорить с вами было интересно, приходите ещё :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Need your advice, is there a point in insisting that ' is used in words like L'vov? It is currently not used it seems, and although part of ISO, I can't find a discussion on the convention.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanization of Ukrainian names is covered by WP:UKR, romanization of Russian names—by WP:RUS. Both guidelines omit apostrophes. We don't use ISO because it does not work well for our purposes. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have quoted you here, I hope you don't mind. if you disagree with the way I have used your remark or if you have any other comments, I am sure you will say so. Apologies if this is not the correct way to do business. :)Abtract (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with someone else quoting what I say in relevant situations :) I have neveretheless clarified my position on the the talk page you linked to, because it indeed can be interpreted both ways. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of Primorsky Krai, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of History of Primorsky Krai. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

De-prodded. It's in awful condition, but salvageable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated History of Primorsky Krai, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Primorsky Krai. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the birthday greeting, could you unlock Ukrainian language since I doubt there will be any edit war there. --Kuban Cossack 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please fix the mess with the infobox of Saint Petersburg? The problem is that 606 km2 is the area of the city proper, while the area of the federal subject is 1,439 km2. Someone was concerned that the former figure should be used for the sake of consistency (across different European cities). This might be reasonable, but the problem is that the population figure seems to include the entire federal subject, and the population density is calculated automatically, which yields nonsense as output. Is it possible to add another optional row to the infobox (area of the city proper) to include both 606 and 1,439? Otherwise the mess is unavoidable in the long run. Colchicum (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I started fixing this, but ran into a snag with assigning area/population ratios. Do you know which parts of the federal subject are not considered to be the parts of the city proper? The 2002 Census, for example, gives the population distributions by St. Petersburg's districts, but the 4.6 million total figure is for the whole federal subject, while "city proper" is completely undefined. Where does the 606 km² area number come from? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The boundaries of the city proper don't coincide with the boundaries of the city districts, e.g. Primorsky and Vyborgsky Districts are only partially within the city proper. Well, whenever we deal with a municipal settlement or something similar, it is not within the city proper. I failed to find city legislation concerning the exact position of the boundaries, but the distinction is certainly in use and is displayed on maps and road signs. The figure comes from the official website of Saint Petersburg. Colchicum (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like all subject is in the city limits, so 'city proper' has no sense.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May be okrugs sum is the city proper, settlements and towns are out:

• Приморский район excl. поселок Лисий Нос

• Колпинский район (all excl.)

• Красносельский район excl. город Красное Село

• Кронштадтский район (all excl.)

• Курортный район(all excl.)

• Петродворцовый район (all excl.)

• Выборгский район excl. поселок Левашово, поселок Парголово

Official Federal Municipal Units DB has no data for the SPb units yet. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Official okrugs boundaries descriptions are here.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We need Лисий Нос,Красное Село, Левашово, Парголово exclude from the respective districts and exclude Колпинский, Кронштадтский, Курортный, Петродворцовый rayons also.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about I let you folks figure it out (and source it)? I, unfortunately, don't currently have time to research these issues myself. What I do have time for (and what I'll do today or tomorrow) is fixing the infobox by including the lines which deal with area/population for the city/federal subject and include separate lines for density calculations. Will that work?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DSROpen (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because articles as generic as Lipetsk Oblast are not supposed to include information this specific. There are over 1,500 rural localities in Lipetsk Oblast, why single out just one? The list of rural localities of Gryazinsky District should be placed in the Gryazinsky District article, not in the article overviewing the whole oblast. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, this couldn't possibly be correct :) I think some algorithm tweaking is in order...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Tricky. As it happens I had an exception in my bot for "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian" (which use 'a' rather than 'an'), but I didn't have one for the misspelt 'Ukrainan'! I have added a spelling correction rule to my bot for 'Ukrainan' in case this happens again though. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can try changing the policy and see if we get reverted. There was no significant opposition, as far as I can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind doing it? I regret to admit that the dab project folks can't stand my guts any more, so you'll have better chances of not being reverted on the spot for being, well, you :) I will, of course, back you up if need be. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kuthen/KOTIAN of the Cumens.I have edited the article on Philppa of Hainault.Her maternal ancestry has been traced in an unbroken line to Elizabeth of Bosnia who was the daughter of Kuthen,Khan of the Cumens by a woman listed in all records as a Galicie of Halicz, said to have been the daughter of Rurikide "Mstislaw" Jaroslwitsch, Prince de Halicz.Is this possible? Judging from the article on Mstislav, it appears ,he may, in fact have been her maternal grandfather intead.thank you for your help.jeanne (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jeanne! I'm afraid I'm not the person best qualified to answer this question, sorry. What you are asking is way beyond my area of expertise. If you post this question at the Russian notice board, however, you might have better luck in getting an answer.

Sorry not to be of more help, but please let me know if there is anything else I could be of assistance with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Привет! Не знаешь, куда снесли всю геральдику, в частности из статьи Kazan? И почему?--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 12:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Герб Казани из en.wiki был удалён, потому что то же самое изображение с тем же самым названием был на Commons, а из Commons его удалили где-то в марте за отсутствием лицензии. Флаг с Commons удалили также по причине отсутствия лицензии. Если что-то ещё откуда-то исчезло, то, подозреваю, по той же самой причине...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Там ведь была какая-то линцензия, которая позволяла именно с этого сайта брать российскую геральдику.. и вроде бы я даже этот тэг проставил (( --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Я не знаю. Поскольку на Commons я не админ, то и посмотреть, что там было до удаления не в состоянии :(—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi after having read your comments on Talk:New Siberian Islands I realised that you are the right person to ask about the ulus of the Sakha Republic. I asked the question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#Russian time zones before I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects. basically I was wondering if you know (or can figure out) which ulus lie in which time zone. Thanks Lokal_Profil 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on the WikiProject's talk page. Please let me know if you need anything else. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just recently I have read about index pages, but it doesn't quite say that the rules from WP:D should be ignored. Can you place some additional thoughts over here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not on my page please. Discuss on Sesshomaru's talk page, here, the talk page of the article in question, or on one of the dab project talk pages. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, better off a response on my talk page below yours Ezhiki. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I replied on your talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Обрати внимание на Ivan Samohvalov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), в рувики он заблокирован бессрочно.--Torin-ru (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо, буду иметь в виду. Только можно ссылку на подробности в рувики, пожалуйста?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Это клевета, товарищ. Меня там заблокировали ни за что ни про что. у меня небыло никакого вандализма. я писал статьи и ставил шаблоны. поставил шаблон в статью про рокировку, что там нет источников, так его почему-то убрали. а там нет источников!! а теперь вообще запрещают редактировать даже анонимно, хотя я сегодня написал хорошую статью - про группу "Rock-Bottom Remainders‎". сейчас и тут заблокируют, да? нечестно...--Ivan Samohvalov (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Да никто вас не собирается тут блокировать только за то, что вас блокировали на рувики. Ведите себя хорошо, да и все дела :) Будут вопросы — обращайтесь; с удовольствием помогу.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Он у вас уже совершил нарушение и весьма серьёзное: он подделал мои подписи в моём обсуждении. Запроси чек-юзеров, пусть проверят.--Torin-ru (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Плюс к этому, у меня состоялась переписка с админом ру-вики Сайгой20, он здесь не регистрировался, так что тот Сайга20, который отметился на моей странице также, скорее всего виртуал Самохвалова. --Torin-ru (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  А как он зарегистрировался, если для админов единая учётная запись? --Paukrus (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Так ведь для этого запрос надо подавать, а он этого не делал. Сегодня он мне сообщил, что в англо-вике он не регился.--Torin-ru (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Да, действие не для админа. :( Ладно, надо ему сказать. И прекратить разговорчики по-русски, ибо нас тут обвинят ещё в заговоре. :) --Paukrus (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Alex took care of this, and I concur with his decision. Please let me know if I am expected to do anything further to this effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Хотелось бы привлечь внимание сюда. В рувики есть один вандал, который зарегистрировался тут под никами нескольких рувики-админов (или под похожими именами), и на этой странице одна из кукл жалуется на другую... В том числе, кстати, одна из этих кукл подделывала Вашу подпись.
Можно ли обменяться какими-то контактами? Так уж получилось, что я администратор в русской Википедии, и мне хотелось бы иметь какую-то возможность быстрого обмена мнениями. Если нужно подтвердить мою подлинность :), то у меня SUL, подтвержден почтовый адрес, я частый гость на #wikipedia-ru, где ник Lvova, опять же, подтвержден. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Что касается контактов, то быстрее чем через эту страницу меня поймать вряд ли возможно. Если я онлайн и что-то серьёзное, то отвечу сразу.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ок. Можно ли попросить помощи в ускорении проверки чекюзерами? У меня случилась прекрасная переписка с упомянутым вандалом, он обещал шалить 26го (я так понимаю, в честь Чернобыля). Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Я, к сожалению, ни одного чекъюзера не знаю настолько хорошо, чтобы просить об одолжении, но если через пару дней дело не продвинется, то обращусь к кому-нибудь из них персонально. Если за эти пару дней товарищ Иван начнёт массовое хулиганство, напишите мне записку, буду действовать быстрее.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Настенька, ну причем тут Чернобыль? Мои диапазоны просто разблокируют в этот день - 26 апреля. Вечно Ваш, Иван Самохвалов.--89.204.103.238 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Иван, если вы будете продолжать подделывать чужие подписи, то в этот же день вас заблокируют обратно.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Должен призначть, это самый прекольный способ вандализма. но ведь есть и другие. вам-то в любом случаен езачем беспокоиться. мне в ру-вике веселее. Иван Самохвалов.--89.204.103.238 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Так что, не пнуть ли ЧЮ-то? :) Эту запись добавили к запросу на проверку. Мы сейчас обсуждаем, что с ним можно делать, но не хотелось бы тут фиксировать идеи, нужно обсудить в каком-нибудь im. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Аккаунт заблокировал, и IP вместе с ними. Пускай светит свои запасы, что ли.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Кстати, в качестве формальности, подтвердите, пожалуйста что это не ваша запись (in English). Дифф добавим сюда.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not my account. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As for imming, I don't have access to anything at the moment; sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I noted you changed the opening statement on this page from:

Baykal, also spelled Baikal, is a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.

to

Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal , a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.

...While it is understood that Baykal doesn't only refer to the lake of that name, the fact is that Baykal redirects to the article on Lake Baikal, therefore making Lake Baikal the primary topic. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Linking to a primary topic the opening statement should give a simple description of what the primary topic "is", not what it "may be". In addition, it should also be formatted so as to start with a link to the primary topic's article and should not contain more than one link - your choice of phrase results in two links to the very same article.

If you disagree with Lake Baykal's position as the primary topic then you might want to use that article's discussion page to propose redirecting Baykal to the disambiguation page, or to whichever page you see fit (unlike yourself, I know very little of Russian geography/history.) You will also want to fix any current links to Baykal and Baikal, should you choose to make such a change.

Lastly, I noted you moved the link to Baikal highway under the heading "Rural localities". I don't think a highway can be considered a "locality."

Please let me know what you think. If you do not object I would like to revert the opening statement to what it was, in order to reflect Wikipedia's manual of style. Marchije (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Marchije! Thanks for your message.

Regarding the opening line, you might want to take a look at Talk:Baykal (disambiguation), where it was discussed in much detail (and, I'm sorry to admit, often in hot tempers). "My" version, in fact, is not really mine but rather a compromise outcome of the discussion. Anyway—take a look at the talk page; after reading it you might very well find yourself having stepped right in the middle of a proverbial can of worms :)

As for the highway, it wasn't me who moved it to the "rural localities" section, it was you who grouped it in "Geography" and me who overlooked it when subdividing the Geography section into subsections. You are, of course, correct that it does not qualify as a "locality". In any case, seeing that Mikka has removed most of the "microsections" (an action I neither agree nor disagree with), the point is moot now. I don't have a strong opinion regarding whether the subsections so details are really necessary.

Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki,

Thanks for the quick response. I must admit that I had quickly scanned the previous discussions; I obviously should be paying closer attention...

Since there has already been a long, heated discussion about it all, I truly would rather not get involved. I guess I'll leave the page as is. I think people are taking this all WAAAAAYYY to personally!! Marchije (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore they don't. Well, I hope they don't, anyway :) I sure have taken it too personally at some point. Shame on me :) Anyways, thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, where exactly is the consensus on talk for this bit of overlinking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Why do I have to keep doing all the work for you? How hard was it to find this (see under #1, Intro line)?

Don't know if this is qualifies as consensus proper, but with two people supporting this wording and the rest of the world silent or indifferent, I guess it would have to do. If you take ten minutes to read through all of it, perhaps you will even understand the reasoning behind this solution (hint—we are writing an encyclopedia, so encyclopedic goals beat formalities such as MOSDAB every time). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that consensus? I see one support (you), one neutral-ish (JHunterJ), and one oppose (me). How is that consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not so much about consensus, as it is about factual correctness. Please do not mangle geographic names just because MOSDAB says you can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from belittling me. If that's what it takes, then I'll open up a new discussion later because not only am I a stickler for the rules, I obviously don't agree with the layout. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sess, it was not my intent to "belittle" you. Your work on cleaning the dab pages is very much appreciated. The only message I am trying to get to you is that while the dab guidelines are important for achieving consistent formatting, they should never be viewed as having a higher priority than encyclopedic content. There are very good reasons not to stick to each and every letter of MOSDAB on the Baykal dab page; I hope you'll understand what they are if you keep an open mind. I provided numerous explanations to that effect on the talk page.

As for the layout, I have no strong opinion about it; so I'm not sure why you mention it to me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've stubbed Kiev Governorate and Volhynian Governorate from pl wiki, but they have much larger articles on ru wiki. Pl wiki states that Kiev Governorate was created in late 18th century, but other sources I have indicate it existed decades before that - perhaps it was created after the Treaty of Andrusovo gave Kiev to Russia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I will take these over if you don't mind. But you could turn your eyes to this redlink some day Soviet administrative reform of 1923–1929. Long overdue and I don't know who else to ask. Cheers, --Irpen 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. You probably have more information on these two than I do anyway (I mostly tend to focus on territories which are a part of modern Russia). As for the administrative reform article, it is on my to-do list, but I doubt I'll get to it any time soon. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do have sources but they are spread among several houses and it may take me a while to get them all together. So, if you have some online ones handy, pls feel free to list them. Would appreciate. Also, I modified the two Russian journal article refs you were using. Thanks for finding them. Very useful stuff. С наступающим! :) --Irpen 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything online, but I am planning to review these article after you are done with them, as I now have a couple of very good books which may prove useful. Even if I don't add anything, at least the articles will be additionally verified. Also, с наступающим чем???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Куличём :) --Irpen 20:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Although I guess I can be partially excused by the fact that I don't celebrate this particular holiday :) Anyway, thanks, and same to you!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome by all means and thanks! I won't have much time for several hours anyway. Cheers, --Irpen 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, should not {{lang-ru|Киевская губерния}} use old style azbuka "Кіевская губернія"? Not that this is the highest priority concern for me. --Irpen 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm not going to usurp it for long, though (I'm almost done, as a matter of fact). As for the pre-reform spelling, I'll add it to the modern one. Not sure how to handle this properly, so feel free to play around with order/formatting, etc. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Go, usurp it by all means. It needs so much work! But I will try my best to make it as complete as possible. As for the pre-reform spelling, I have neither an opinion nor a view on its usage. --Irpen 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added what I could; for now anyway. By the way, I left you a comment in the body of the text, because I was not able to track where the statement about "four districts" came from. All yours now! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some inconsistency. Both sources name all eleven locations but one says that two of them were not uyezds. Any clue? --Irpen 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Fundukley says, verbatim (in modern spelling): "Второю эпохою в образовании Киевской Губернии было учреждение трёх Малороссийских Губерний или Наместничеств, по Указу Екатерины II, 1784 г. Сентября 16. В исполнение этого Указа, 1782 года 9 Января открыто Киевское Наместничество, составленное из 11 уездов: Киевского, и по ту сторону Днепра — Остёрского, Козелецкого, Переяславского, Пирятинского, Лубенского, Миргородского, Хорольского, Голтвянского, Городиского или Городищенского и Золотоношского. Тогда в этом краю введены были новый порядок и новые формы управления, по учреждению о губерниях, начертанному Императрицею в 1775 году."

Judging that this description is not overly specific, I could imagine the sources you used may be correct as well, although I was hesitant to leave them in the text due to the fact they did not come from particularly reliable sources and could easily be mis-interpretations of the original source (which we are yet to identify). Fundukley at least specifically names eleven uyezds. In any case, I'll keep looking and will let you know if I find anything more definite. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, are you currently in the possession on this book? Do you know, or could you check the following, please. Was Kiev guberniya still "subdivided" into one province after 1727, when 3 out of 4 provinces were split off, or was it just a guberniya without any provinces. The latter seems logical, but what was in the reality? Thanks, Greggerr (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gregger! Kiev Governorate indeed remained comprised of one province (Kiev Province), and it was not the only Governorate "subdivided" in such a manner—Revel, Riga, Smolensk, and Astrakhan Governorates were all comprised of only one province as well. Unlike provinces of other Governorates, however, Kiev was divided not into uyezds but into regiments (which had autonomous rights). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Огромная просьба разблокировать этот шаблон! --SeNeKa (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Хорошо, разблокировал. Просьба, однако, больше не воевать — если у вас какие-то несогласия с другими участниками по поводу форматирования/содержания, то воспользуйтесь страницей обсуждения.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо. воевать не буду --SeNeKa (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, long time no chat, huh? :) Anyway, I noticed that somewhere on your to-do list is an infobox for Russian governorates. Well, I used {{Infobox Former Subdivision}} couple times before, and I think it works quite well. Hope you'll find it useful. Renata (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still have this infobox on my to-do list, although it is not a priority. If {{Infobox Former Subdivision}} is working out for now, that's great, but I suspect that down the road it will no longer be sufficient as there are going to be some very particular specifics that generic infobox would be unable to handle. In any case, if you have any ideas, drop me a line. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I would never turn down an editor (a newbie or not) who contacted me directly for help, I, unfortunately, cannot afford the time committment providing such help on a regular basis would require. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page back. We had a wp:rm discussion only a few months ago, please go through wp:rm if you want to move the page again, cheers. BanRay 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I did miss that RM. Note, however, that "Krylya" is a correct romanization of "Крылья" as per WP:RUS (I see there was some confusion about that), hence the dab page should be located at "Krylya Sovetov". Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Technically Krylya is indeed the correct transliteration, so I didn't touch the disambiguation page, thanks for the quick response. BanRay 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've searched Google for Kaz (referring to Scott Kazmir, a pitcher for the Tampa Bay Rays) and came up with over 46,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Kaz%2Btampa+bay+rays&btnG=Search). Does it necessarily have to mention Kaz in the article? If so, I can work it in. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the target article has to mention the word used to link to it from the dab page. With Kaz, if you can work it in the article (and especially if you can reference it, which, judging from 46K google hits, shouldn't be a problem), that would take care of the problem completely, and the dab entry can be restored. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help mate :) phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:07, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it. I no longer have a need for it (as well as for the companion {{ob}}), and they are hanging out there only because I completely forgot about them. I supplied a comment on TfD to this effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the 4th Mechanized Corps article, at the bottom, linked with a reference you'll find a note referring to the 'Shaulay area'. I cannot find this place but Google searches point toward Lithuania. Can you look into this? Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've been able to find it yourself. Anyway, let me know if you need anything else. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that and I am sorry. Stay assured it won't happen again. Thanks for quick reaction and cheers. --Ml01172 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem; just wanted to let you know about the template sandbox. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend! I was doing a routine cleanup of Russian subdivision categories and its subcategories and one question came to my mind. Shouldn't Cat:North Ossetia be renamed to "North Ossetia-Alania"? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also doubled naming of Cat:Sakha and its subcategories often using "Sakha Republic". This should be unified - which version should be used? - Darwinek (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And a final third question, sorry for having it so much towards you. :) What to do with Cat:Chita Oblast? Since it technically no longer exists should all articles and subcategories be moved to Zabaykalsky Krai category and its subcategories? - Darwinek (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Darwinek! Have you somehow got a copy of my to-do list or what? :) Because these items are there, only at the bottom of it.

Anyhoo, I don't think it makes any difference as to how the North Ossetia cat is titled—both Category:North Ossetia or Category:North Ossetia - Alania are fine. The Sakha cat is called that only because the main article used to be called "Sakha" (instead of the current "Sakha Republic"). This one definitely could use a renaming. Finally, the Chita Oblast cat needs to be retained, but it should be cleaned up as well. Most of the items should be re-categorized to Category:Zabaykalsky Krai, but Chita Oblast-specific topics (such as Chita Oblast itself) should stay.

What I am getting at here is that if you are willing to put in time to have these three cats cleaned, I'll be able to cross three things from my to-do list, so you won't be hearing any complaints from me :) Do let me know if you need help or if anything is unclear, though. Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! So I will let North Ossetia be and will check out the Zabaykalsky Krai later on today. Should I also rename "Sakha Republic" categories to just "Sakha"? I like such cleanup work, it is maybe a dirty work but much needed, Ordnung muss sein as Germans say. Plus, Russian geography is attracting me much, I've never been in Russia but I know there are many many wild and beauty natural areas of all kind there, often combined with good fun as in the Osobennosti Nacjonalnoj Ochoty. :) - Darwinek (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you ever deplete your supply of mindless grunt work, just give me a hollar :) As for Sakha, it would be better to rename all of the cats to use "Sakha Republic", since that's the title of the main article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both done. Just a remaining issue, should Cat:History of Chita Oblast stay or be renamed? Look at the contents of this cat and let me know. Meanwhile, I'll be sorting Rivers of Russia by federal subjects. - Darwinek (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the contents of that cat refer to pre-oblast times anyway (mostly Civil War), so it should be safe to re-cat them to "History of Zabaykalsky Krai". Thanks for taking care of this stuff; much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Plz, rename User:Pauk -> any other (f.e. Pauk_old) and rename my account User:Paukrus -> User:Pauk. I need for SUL. --Paukrus (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! In order to rename an account you'll need help of a bureaucrat (I am not one). You can submit an account rename request at WP:CHU. Also, I assume that the account User:Pauk is yours; if not, you'll also need to submit a request at WP:CHU/U. Sorry for not being of more help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your restore of my user page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the sources this bot is going to use, the outcome is going to be a complete mess. I don't know about other countries, but please keep this bot away from articles on Russian inhabited localities. I am currently working on a database that would include all Russian inhabited localities, but I don't expect it to be finished for another year or so (it is about 35% complete now, covering ~55,000 inhabited localities). The database, for the most part, draws the information from the primary sources, i.e., from the legislative documents of the Russian federal subjects, as well as from the offical reference materials (not available online) published by the governments of the federal subjects. These sources are far more complete and accurate than anything currently available online (especially any English-language sources). Can the bot tackle the issues of romanization? How is it going to handle duplicate titles (of the 55,000+ places in my database about half have duplicate names!)? I don't know anyone who would be looking forward to having to clean up 150,000+ stubs on Russian places after the bot is done with them (I am yet to clean up this and this mess (and there's more), which was the outcome of someone else trying to automate the process. It took me weeks to clean up a few other cats in a similar state, and that was only a hundred something articles. Imagine the magnitude of the disaster when such "articles" start to multiply into thousands.

All in all, if I could shoot this bot on sight, I would do so. Nothing personal, I just don't believe it is a good idea. I hope you understand. If you are intent to continue with this bot, please keep its scope to countries where no editors are actively working on the subject of populated places (and Russia is not one of them). No bot will ever be as good as humans, and this one is going to create more problems than it is going to solve. Please let me know if you need further information. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. OK Thats your opinion. Problems with translated names is always difficult and names will never be perfect, even on existing articles we have on wikipedia there is consierable conflict over the correct transliterations as is to be expected. But I wouldn't right it off as a complete disaster, that , yes we are using the best source we can for coordinates and names using the national geo agency data. But this is only intended as an initial starter. Given time information should become avilable using individual government sources where any outsnading problems can be identified, and phase two of the project will be to try to expand the articles if government data can be found, If many places names turn out to be problematic we are setting up an infrastructure to address this on a mass scale. Each country will undergo an assessment, but if you are working on Russia as a working progress the bot will stay away from Russia providing you can add a full coverage. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We believe that an attempt to address the serious systematic bias on wikipedia is an extremely important one, and whether several names aren't transliterated correctly or not from a native speaking perspective, the location and existence of these places is without a doubt. What we would ask however is that people who have a better insight into proper names, or have sources which would seem to be evne better, then we would warmly appreciate any cooperation to ensure we can start these places within countries to the best of our ability given the sources avialable ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Thanks. I would also suggest that before the bot starts working on any new country, a notification is posted on an appropriate portal's noticeboard. This way editors working on coverage of that particular country would have a chance to comment if they immediately see any problems before the bot screws anything up.

As for Russia, yes, I will be able to provide complete coverage, but, judging from my current pace, I will need at least a year to complete the database (providing there are no unexpected delays). I, of course, have nothing against adding the articles/stubs manually, but I don't believe any bot would be able to consider all of the peculiarities of the Russian administrative and municipal structure (unless such a bot is written specifically for that purpose, which yours is not). Whatever the bot screws up may not be such a problem for any other countries, but the scope for Russia is vast indeed, and quite far from being straightforward, so even minor mistakes (especially transliteration, because the bot is going to use not the original Russian names, but names already romanized by someone else, with that romanization not exactly matching our guidelines) may lead to the necessity of doing the cleanup on a massive scale, thus completely negating and outweighing any bot's benefit. What's more, just because the bot uses the best sources available to it does not mean there are no better sources available to human editors. Again, thanks for your understanding. I'm sure the bot will be kept busy even if it'll only have to cover 50% of those 1.8 million places. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since every country has a slightly different administrative structure, I am already making adjustments as I go to make sure that the articles come out ok. The bot does nothing more than the grunt work of article creation, which can be tedious. Everything else is delegated to human editors - the bot assumes nothing. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well yes I fully agree with you about writing the articles. But the biggest task really is to try to address uneven geographical coverage worldwide and the first task really is just to get them started. In a way using a bot to start them will actually make the process more consistent for most countries with a standard infobox/sources etc which for me, having done a great deal of work on geo articles worldwide already this is the big problem is inconsistency and I've worked hard to try to add infoboxes/sources etc to one line stubs without references. For some countries particularly India and Russia which have been identified already we may need to discuss heavily the best way to create the articles and both Fritz and I are completely open to using the best sources possible for any countries which could be identified. I fully agree with you that encyclopedia articles cannot be written by a bot, that is up to the decent editors on here to accomplish, but we can certianly use it as a power tool to establish something in just months which otherwise might take 10-20 years to establish worldwide. If indeed you are tackling Russia as you have said, I am always the first to offer my uttermost thanks for filling in deficient areas. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Russia already has some pretty decent coverage in Wikipedia, as far as cities/towns and urban-type settlements go. Rural localities are not well-covered at all, but that's mostly because very little can be said about them apart from their location and where they fall in the administrative and municipal structure (here is a typical example). Regardless, these two issues are precisely what my database aims to cover. I will need bot's assistance once the database is complete, but that will not happen soon, and the task will definitely need a specialized bot (i.e., working only on Russian places). If you or Fritz are around by that time, I'll sure let you know when bot assistance is going to be needed. For now, runnig a bot for Russia is premature. Thanks again for your understanding. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, so here I am! If you look at the spec for the bot at requests for approval, you'll see that your underlying concern about humans being better than bots is addressed - I knew that the bot would struggle with duplicate names, typos in the data etc. This is why it is a two-step process. The bot extracts the data into lists, listed at the link Blofeld gave you in the initial message. Editors then check the lists, make changes, remove things, disambiguate multiple places, etc. Only when I'm told that the lists have been checked and are ok, does the bot run through the lists creating articles. The reason Blofeld was here talking to you is because he needed people to help with this checking, which, as you so rightly assert, is utterly necessary if the bot isn't going to need to correct masses of data afterwards.

If you feel the sources are unsuitable for Russia in terms of English names, since that is what the article titles will be, then I am happy to discuss this with you, but writing off the entire project because you feel the bot will do things wildly and unchecked or supervised suggests that you haven't understood parts of the proposal. I may be wrong, or I may have misunderstood your concerns. Nonetheless, I'm happy to discuss this further on this page (mine is becoming very cluttered!) :) Fritzpoll (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the part where I misunderstood that the bot is going to work off the list which had been double-checked by humans. That changes things quite a bit, but, unfortunately, not enough as far as matters of Russian inhabited localities go.

The reason for that is that the list of Russian places is going to be 150,000+ entries long, and considering that a very decent list of about 35% of them is already available, it makes more sense just to finish the database than to download the data from some English-language repository (which would use romanization rules not matching ours and most likely contain information that is neither up-to-date nor 100% correct) and then to have clean those up. If you look at the time it would take to do things either way, your approach is likely to be a few months faster but result in output which is far less than ideal. I can guarantee my database to be at least 95% accurate (and 99.9% up-to-date; i.e., it is accurate as of this month)—can you say the same regarding any of the sources your bot is going to use? I'd rather wait an extra year (if need be) and produce something that is pretty much in its final state than dump things in one place and hope someone will show up to clean them up (which will take years, and the process of such cleanup will not be much different from my approach anyway, except it's going to be much more labor-intensive because of all that moving, re-naming, and re-linking).

I realize this problem is probably irrelevant to most of the countries the bot will cover, but with Russia I would still like to ask that the bot skips it, perhaps permanently. If you would like to get an idea of what kind of difficulties the bot (or the people cleaning up the list of places the bot will use) will have to work around, just glance at subdivisions of Russia, types of inhabited localities in Russia, WP:RUS, and WP:NC:CITY#Russia. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, and I completely understand your position. Might I suggest that when you have finished your database, we collaborate to get the bot to create the articles from your source? Otherwise you will have to create a very large number of articles by hand. The bot approval will still stand, and I can adapt the interface to simply read from the database straight into Wikipedia, provided you are happy to allow me access to it? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I've just said... :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol - that's fine. Doing the rest of the world will likely take the better part of a year in any case. Nearer the time, perhaps you can enlighten me about some technical aspects, like the database format, etc. and I can have them ready by the time your information is complete. Stay in touch, but the bot will avoid Russia for now, I promise. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you know the details once it is at least 80% done. That should give us enough time to build an interface and flag potential problems. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Probably we would have left Russia, CHina and India till last anyway. CHina is also another country to be exercised with caution. But it would be good to add those rural localities at a later date... Probably they will be more difficult to write about but not impossible. Kepe up the good work with Russia anyway ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Leaving these countries till last will also let you polish the bot and take care of any problems which are impossible to even predict now. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I may see if I can get hold of some locator maps for Russia. I;ve noticed many of the articles use just the entire country map for location. WHile this is good Russia is such a gigantic country that I would suggest that more specific provincial maps for the pushpin could be created for the Russian oblasts in addition. I have created most of the location maps for the infoboxes around the world see User:Blofeld of SPECTRE/Missing locator maps. What I would propose is that some regional oblast maps of Russia are created such as Template:Location map Buenos Aires Province. This would give a more specific location in addition to the national locator map. Naturally I would like to see every article on a russian city, town or urabn settlement with an infobox and locator map ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have some skills working with the maps, but I'm afraid I'm not the person to talk to when it comes to creating them from scratch. The very least we need is the federal subject maps for European and Asian parts of the country, and then separate maps for each federal subject are definitely in order. I think this was brought up before, but at the time nobody was able to produce such a set. If you happen to know someone willing to work on this, that person's efforts will definitely not go unappreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy to ask would be User:Sadalmelik for maps and in terms of creating the digits for the location maps User:MJCdetroit. I'll see what dutch wikipedia has, the dutch always seem to be technically much more advanced than us! It would certainly be possible to create oblast maps and to be able to create a specific location for any settlmeent within it using coordinates. Given that some of the russian oblasts are larger than some countries put together an oblast locator map would be very useful for russian towns and cities, I'll look into it . Best regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are in luck!!!! See here the oblast maps and coordinates already list. In the next few days I can help transfer them to english wikipedia, Sound good? For example Archangelsk. If we had maps like this in the articles we could see location not only within the oblast but within the subdivisions of it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about redlinking them here either tonight or tomorrow ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's great! Thanks for finding them! Now we just need a set of locator templates to incorporate those maps, and we are all set.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've red linked them ready. The only thing is I think they are only compatible with a standard infobox city/settlement. I'll create a map later and add an infobox to an article and let me know if you are happy with it. Ideally the infoboxes would have two maps, one of the location in the whole of russia and the second one location in the specific oblast. It should look pretty decent. Eventually there should be no article on a russia settlement without an infobox and its own location maps using the pushpin pin ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made the first one Template:Location map Arkhangelsk. I'll see how it looks in an article later. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't yet have infoboxes for Russian rural localities or urban-type settlements (because the existing articles on them are usually too short, and an infobox would overwhelm them for no good reason); only for cities/towns ({{Infobox Russian city}}). It will be easy enough to modify that template to include two maps, as the locator template is already built-in into it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Buanos días, señor Ëzhiki. Одним вредным бельгийцем в английскую Википедию было upload'нуто изображение Novgorod Oblast Flag.gif. Всё бы ничего, но это изображение флага Нижегородской области, а не Новгородской. Теперь это изображение используется в разных статьях то как нижегородский, то как новгородский флаг. Зато в статье Novgorod Oblast приведено изображение настоящего флага Новгородской области (Flag of Novgorod oblast.png). Любопытно, что в статье Flags of federal subjects of Russia флага Новгородской области нет вовсе — там есть только Novgorod Oblast Flag.gif, который изображает и подписан как флаг Нижегородской области. Увы, моих навыков не хватает чтобы исправить столь глубоко проросшую ошибку. Could you fix that please? — Hellerick (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look and see what I can fix some time next week. Thanks for bringing this to light!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, should be all taken care of now. I also completely delinked Image:Novgorod Oblast Flag.gif from everywhere and listed it for deletion. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you can help. I have had lengthy discussion with User:DIREKTOR over contents of Belgrade Offensive. The crux of it is that he asserts the operation was conducted as a joint operation between the Red Front involved and the Yugoslav Partisans. To back his up DIREKTOR used one reference from a general survey of the history of Yugoslavia derived from the country data entry from Library of Congress that uses the word joint. What DIREKTOR refuses to understand is that joint operations are very complex that just were not there during the operation so far as I have been able to identify. There were diverging strategic goals between Tito and Timoshenko and althoguh there was some cooperation at tactical level (inevitably), and the Red Army ensured Yugoslavs were there for the liberation of Belgrade, as a whole, the cooperation was minimal, and certainly the 3rd Ukrainian Front's planning did not envisage close cooperation due to disparity in the forces involved in terms of training, capabilities, communications, etc.

Owing to my failure to explain all this, and now having provided a source from a well known, if dated British military historian that confirms the diverging roles of the two forces, I am going to request a history RfC. In the meantime, would you be able to protect the page until the RfC is concluded, or until I am able to find more sources to prove myself wrong. There is just not a lot available in English. I had asked David Glantz, but he recommended a source in Russian which I don't have. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Before you take any action regarding this I'd recommend you check the page history, the various options offered by editors involved (including myself recently) and potentially counsel Mrg3105 about the value in other peoples' opinions - not instant reverts. Buckshot06(prof) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mgr! I am sorry, but I am unable to grant your request. Full protection of articles is reserved for a very limited number of situations, and pending RfC is not one of them. In general, articles are fully protected only when they are heavily vandalized or when a revert war is going on with no signs of stopping (see WP:PROT for details). Even then, full protection is applied for as short a term as possible. Since there is no ovbious vandalism to the article in question, and the only revert war going on is the one you yourself are involved with, the best course of action is to leave the article as is (at least as far as the part being contended is concerned) until additional sources become available. Note that if you choose to continue with the reverts, you are more likely to get yourself blocked rather than to have the argument resolved.

Again, sorry for not being of much help with this. I hope you'll be able to hunt down the sources which will help resolve the discussion and improve the article, and I wish you best of luck in this endeavor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well, since I am seemingly the only one looking for sources, I guess it will have to wait resolution of the RfC--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I'm afraid military history is not one of my fortes...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to do something about this user? He has repeatedly deleted large sections of the article Battle of Stalingrad. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like simple vandalism to me. If he continues like that, he'll get his standard warnings and then be blocked; perhaps indefinitely (as a vandalism-only account). I'll keep an eye on the article. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I still have a few pages left to tag - am putting together a rather large nomination for cities in the Russian fed. who share a name with oblasts/krais. Mayumashu (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would ask you to reconsider doing so (the main reason why I pointed out that Kaliningrad is missing an entry is because I wanted to oppose). "Kaliningrad" and "Kaliningrad Oblast" are two different entities, and since the latter should never be referred to as simply "Kaliningrad" (without any qualifiers such as "Oblast", "province", "region", etc.), there should not be any ambiguity and hence no need to disambiguate the city. Same goes for all other federal subjects you intend to nominate (unless, of course, they conflict with something else besides the federal subjects for which they serve as administrative centers—cf. Kirov, Kirov Oblast). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I ve done this nomination a few times in the past for places in Italy, Nigeria, and a few others. In those cases too, the cities were the more well-known than the state, county, or whathaveyou, but more contributors favoured adding the word city in parentheses for that extra bit of clarity - hence we have Rome (for the city) andCategory:People from Rome (city); Lagos and Category:People from Lagos (city), and Dublin and Category:People from Dublin (city). Mayumashu (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you misunderstand this. While both the city of Lagos and Lagos State can be referred to as Lagos, only the city of Kaliningrad can be referred to as simply Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Oblast cannot. Oblast is not a qualifier here, it is part of the name. Colchicum (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably Kaliningrad (disambiguation) has to be reworded. It doesn't read correctly. Colchicum (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. You (Mayumashu) are, of course, welcome to go ahead with the nom; I just wanted to save you time on doing something that is unlikely to succeed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ezhiki! You can go here and vote and comment. - Darwinek (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per your edit summary: "rv unexplained deletion" I'd like to clarify that I didn't delete anything, I made the page into a redirect which I explained in the summary. If you don't agree with someone ask them why they did somehting. It's where talk pages are for. FelisLeo^Talk! 14:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you took it that way, but replacing a number of entries with a redirect with no explanation of why sure looks like "unexplained deletion" to me. In any case, I removed a red-linked entry on a person with no back links (and who does not, in my opinion, pass the notability threshold) and re-classed the page as a set index article. If you disagree, let's discuss it on Talk:Rudnichny. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I was being BOLD and really thought it would be better to change the list to a redirect. My reasoning behind the change initially is that I don't think the redlinks would ever grow into decent articles. But in any case, the version you reverted to seems better that the original I made into a redirect anyways so I'm okay with this outcome. I realise that I did say WHAT I did in the edit summary but not WHY I didt it ;) FelisLeo^Talk! 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bold usually only works in places no one watches or cares about :) This particular set happens to be a node in a huge system, in which consistency plays an important role. Anyway, no harm done, and since we did manage to spot and kill an entry that was not supposed to be, the net outcome is positive. Let me know if there's anything else I should address. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Russian geographical knowledge is needed here. The redirect to the current location of this world war 2 battle - Livenka - goes at the moment to a musical type(!) Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 01:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I though it was going to be simple (since someone helpfully provided Livenka's coordinates), but it did not really turn out this way. The good news is that I was able to find both Livenka and Nikolayevka, though.

First of all, I should note that my sources on Belgorod Oblast (where Livenka is and Nikolayevka was located) do not go back any further than 1959, so that's what I had to work with. In 1959, there were two Livenkas in Belgorod Oblast—one in Korochansky District and the other one in Nikitovsky District. The one in Korochansky District, however, was a khutor (a very small village), and it no longer exists (as of at least 1992). So my second guess was Livenka in Nikitovsky District, which at the time was a selo and the administrative center of that district's Livensky Selsoviet. Currently, it is a selo and the administrative center of Livensky Rural Okrug of Krasnogvardeysky District of Belgorod Oblast. I can tell for sure that there was never a city or a town in Belgorod Oblast called "Livenka", so this one must be the right one.

As for Nikolayevka itself, my 1959 source shows one in Nikitovsky District (in Livensky Selsoviet, within one kilometer of Livenka), which further confirms that Livenka identified above is the right one.

As a result, I created a dab page for all of the Livenkas I could find and straightened out the link on battle of Nikolayevka as you requested. Please let me know if you need anything else or have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And here is this stub to kill off a red link. Enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey great work very quickly done - thanks a bunch. What do you think about this proposal to create roughly one million(?) town stubs - should I support or oppose? Buckshot06(prof) 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's your call; I can't impose my views on you :) If you must know, however, I strongly opposed at first, but then the proposal was revised to include more human oversight, so not only that won me over, but I also agreed to participate... eventually (see above). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for imposition of views, but I know nothing about the subject, and I wanted to be guided in my participation in the debate, if any, by someone who knew something, not just my random thoughts. I'll take a look. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one - Varfolomeyevka, northwest of Ussuriysk in the far east - it's an airbase. Any details? Buckshot06(prof) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

But of course I can—it is located in Primorsky Krai, where I lived most of my life :) Varfolomeyevka you need is located in Yakovlevsky District of Primorsky Krai, at 44°18′N 133°26′E. Yes, there is an airbase there; a small one, if I remember correctly (never been in that area myself except in transit, however). There is also the railway station of Varfolomeyevka in the vicinity, which is incorporated as a separate inhabited locality, but I doubt you need to go into such fine details. Anyway, what exactly would you like me to find about this place?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great prompt response. Would you mind listing it in the appropriate way in your article about subdivisions of Primorsky Krai, with any relevant details, plus coordinates? Buckshot06(prof) 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this, no, I can't—this list is supposed to include only the top level divisions, cities/towns, and urban-type settlements, not rural localities (mainly because there are over 600 of them in Primorsky Krai, and listing them all would overload the list). What I can do, however, is to create a set index article at Varfolomeyevka. Another viable option is, of course, creating the article on Yakovlevsky District and list all of its inhabited localities there (same way it is done in, for example, the Giaginsky District article), but that's a lot more work. Please let me know if a set index will be sufficient for you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, making known more information about the North Caucasus areas etc is far more important than having to create district articles for the Far East - it's quiet and sleepy and can be left for much later. All I'd ask for the moment is just that you advise me of the appropriate spelling for the redlink in 11th Air Army, correct any other redlink spellings you come across, and put a Varfolomeyevka stub on your list of things to do this year. It's not very important. More importantly, what is your order of priority for creating district level articles like Giaginsky? Also, hope you didn't mind me adding your info to the Air Army page. Buckshot06(prof) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may seem as quiet sleepy backwaters to you, but since it's my original home, I, naturally, tend to pay those articles more attention than I probably should :) (in fact, administrative divisions of Primorsky Krai is only second to Agygea in terms of the percentage of blue links).

Anyhoo, to answer your question about my priorities, apart from promising this user to bring administrative divisions of Tatarstan to featured status (which is not something I can do without his help, because he has Tatar-language sources needed to paint most of the red links blue), my schedule is pretty flexible. I'd like to finish my database of Russian populated places before I do any more major work on the administrative divisions articles, but after that I am wide-open to suggestions as to what to work on next. The list of Adygea's divisions was just a pilot project (Adygea is alphabetically the first in the list and is pretty small, so different organization/formatting ideas could have been tried without having to change hundreds of articles every time there is a minor improvement to the process).

As for Varfolomeyevka, I'll put together a set index today as promised. Also, while I don't have any problems with you citing me, the ref you added to the 11th Air Army is not really appropriate since another Wikipedia user cannot serve as a reference for an article. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK good luck with your plans. Yes the set index article for Varfolomeyvka will solve the unsourced problem on the 11 VA article. Buckshot06(prof) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't find another airfield for me, could you. ПриВО (Саратовская область, н.п. Багай-Барановка - PriVolga Military District, Saratov Oblast, Bagai-Baranovka? Cheers and thanks. Actually found it - Sennoy (airport). Buckshot06(prof) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, less work for me :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Any plans for doing the Sudom uplands (Sudom highlands?) article? ;0) I wanted to do an article about the golden chain, which is a folk tail that is not often heard even in Russia. However, although the article will be relatively small, no one will have a clue about the Sudom uplands other then that its in the Pskov oblast. I only know about it from my GPW readings. Just don't have the time to do the entire uplands article which I imagine would be quite significant an effort. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no such plans. In general, I limit my editing activities to populated places (which is quite a handful as it is). If you occasionally catch me editing an article about some other geographical feature, this is either because I needed that article for disambiguation purposes or it was in such horrible condition I just couldn't ignore it :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In mood for some digging? I would like to find this place on a map... In Lithuanian it is Liubutskas, it is supposed to be near Oka River, north west from Tula. Algirdas attacked it, and in 1372 signed a peace treaty there. I think this is about the same place. What's the proper Russian name (transliterated)? Renata (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Bogomolov.PL answered it for you. See user talk:Renata3#Любуцк. Renata (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates: please be so kind to add a Timezone params (like ones in Infobox Settlement) to Infobox Russian city and your other templates, where applicable. I could do it myself but some of the templates are protected. Slicer_Mirkwood

All Russian cities/towns are located in the timezones of their federal subjects. Thus, it makes no sense to add a timezone parameter to the city template as all it would do is to increase maintenance and error rate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, then - for cities. But there is no time zone specified for Republic of Bashkortostan (the Federal Subject for Ufa), either. So is it for "Volga Federal District" (in the latter case I am not even sure it lies entirely in a single time zone). And, in any case, if you prefer not to put timezone info in a city description, it would be useful to add a note to an infobox, like: "Timezone: see Federal Subject".- Slicer Mirkwood (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

But it is specified for Bashkortostan, just not in the infobox—see Bashkortostan#Time zone. Every Russian federal subject, save Sakha Republic and Sakhalin Oblast, lies in a single time zone. As for the note, I think that's redundant as well, but you are, of course, welcome to seek broader input. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for answering all the questions I had about Russian pronunciation and transliteration. Out of all the people who answered, your answers were the most helpful, and I really appreciate all that time you took to read carefully through the sometimes-complex questions and answer in such detail. I'm also grateful for the patience and courtesy with which you answered my sometimes nitpicky points. Thanks, and happy editing! —Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, isn't that what the Reference Desk is supposed to be for? :) You are very welcome, and please don't hesitate to contact me directly if you have any similar questions in future. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please semi-protect the article, and also carry out disciplinary action against the anon who has been attacking it and many others for the past month at least. (He was warned for the upteenth time) and have a look at the Personal attacks he carries across. --Kuban Cossack 13:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Protected for one week.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you not going to take care of the disruptive IP? --Kuban Cossack 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean blocking, if I do that, it would make it hard for him/her to carry out the discussion on the talk page as suggested, thus rendering the whole protection meaningless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The page has already been protected, the user has stated clearly he has no intention to discussion. Each such visit of his to wikipedia is followed by an attack of disrupting the status quo on the langauges in the lead. no other contribution. Have a look at the history of Lugansk, Donetsk, Odessa etc. A pattern emerges.--Kuban Cossack 14:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The IPs do not seem to match, but I posted a reminder on the talk page of the most recent IP nevertheless. Hopefully that'll be the same IP s/he use when logging in next time. Pattern or no pattern, our first assumption should be that that person is simply not aware of the rules.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just looking at it. I'll drop my thoughts in now. (Emperor (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Why do you destroi finnish name from artickle Säsjoki? Finlands the biggest map company has Karelian map (Karjala Car Map 2006) has name Säsjoki locating like name of that city. Look article of finnish wikipedian...and references also. Mikko Paananen is campaining anti-finnish name policy in Finnish wikipedian and thats why she remove finnish name from articles. Please, dont support that policy. --85.156.243.93 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The choice of a title to use in the Finnish Wikipedia is that Wikipedia's internal matter. If you feel that name is incorrect, you need to work with the Finnish Wikipedia's community on this. This has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia.

What does have to do with the English Wikipedia is the fact that all our articles should have correct interwiki links. You changing the Finnish interwiki in Syasstroy from fi:Sjasstroi to fi:Säsjoki changes the target from the article about the place to the article about the river, and will also utterly confuse the interwiki-bots, which may end up screwing up more interwiki links on many Wikipedias. That mess will have to be straightened out by someone, and I don't believe that someone is going to be you.

I will unprotect the article for now, as it is obvious that your changes were in good faith, but please note that any further attempt to change the interwiki links to something else than the place in question will be dealt with as vandalism and may lead to you being blocked (not necessarily by me). Please take this dispute to where it belongs—the Finnish Wikipedia. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Уважаемый Ëzhiki! Спасибо Вам за приглашение участвовать в портале Россия! Я обязательно с ним детально ознакомлюсь, но я не чувствую в себе сил и знаний, чтобы помочь чем-то серьёзным. Свой вклад в англоязычную википедию я предполагаю следующим: интервики, небольшое редактирование статей, посвященных малым населенным пунктам России, другим географическим объектам России, перенос иллюстраций из русскоязычной википедии, создание небольших статей и заготовок статей исключительно по российской тематике.

Обнаружил, что в статье Shchyolkovo дан старый герб города. Теперь у города Щёлково другой герб (см. герб в таблице в ru:Щёлково), а приведённый в Shchyolkovo герб - теперь герб Щёлковского района.

Но суть вопроса в другом. После вступления в силу Закона "ОБ ОБЩИХ ПРИНЦИПАХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИИ МЕСТНОГО САМОУПРАВЛЕНИЯ В РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" () у нас коренным образом изменились наименования муниципальных образований (а, кое-где, в т.ч., в Щёлковском районе, произошла серьёзная перекройка структуры муниципальной власти - добавился ещё один уровень). И теперь собственно город Щёлково входит в состав "городского поселения Щёлково" (), куда, кроме города Щёлково, входят ещё ряд посёлков и деревень. Я в затруднении, как правильно называть на английском языке эти новые структуры. Подозреваю, что в англоязычной википедии ещё не выработаны соответствующие правила.

Был бы признателен, если бы Вы мне подсказали, как правильно для англоязычной википедии написать: "герб городского поселения Щёлково", "герб муниципального района Щёлково"? Или, может быть, не заморачиваться всеми этими бюрократическими наворотами и исходить из старых (и активно употребляемых в бытовой лексике), наименований: "герб города Щёлково" и "герб Щёлковского района"?

Заранее благодарен, Gastro-en (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) PS. Надеюсь, русскоязычная речь на этой странице не моветон? В противном случае приношу свои извинения.

Здравствуйте, Гастро! Терминология у нас уже вполне устаканилась; ниже приведу ссылки. Муниципальные образования у нас действительно покрыты так себе, но хочу прежде всего отметить, что подход к ним в английской википедии существенно отличается от подхода, используемого в википедии русской. В ru.wiki статьи о муниципальных образованиях являются основными. Подход этот хоть и имеет смысл, но, если копать глубже, неверен. Муниципальные образования — это единицы вторичные, образуются они на базе образований административно-территориальных, которые и являются единицами первичными. Поэтому все статьи в en.wiki строятся вокруг административно-территориальных единиц. Например, если в ru.wiki статья, например, про Гиагинский район —это статья прежде всего про Гиагинский муниципальный район, то статья на en.wiki (Giaginsky District) — это прежде всего статья про район административный. В случаях, когда административные районы совпадают с муниципальными (тот же Гиагинский), то, опять-таки, статья создаётся про административный район, и уже в эту статью добавляется информация про муниципальный аспект. Когда муниципальный район создаётся на основе, например, города подчинения федеральному субъекту, то основной статьёй будет статья про город (административная единица), а не про муниципальный район (пример — Neryungri). Ну и, наконец, если муниципальный район основан на базе нескольких административных, то тогда можно создать и отдельную статью про него (хотя статьи про административные районы, конечно же, тоже будут существовать).

Точно такой же подход и к проблеме сельсоветы vs. сельские поселения, с той лишь разницей, что про них отдельные статьи стоит создавать только в исключительных случаях (потом объясню почему, если это вам интересно). Про населённые пункты, разумеется, создавать статьи можно и нужно, вне зависимости от их размеров.

Спасибо, что поправили герб в статье про Щёлково. Символикой российских районов/городов/населённых пунктов у нас, насколько мне известно, всерьёз никто не занимается, поэтому если желаете помочь на этом фронте, это было бы очень здорово.

Что касается собственно терминологии и конвенций, вот обещанные ссылки. Транслитерация русских названий покрывается WP:RUS. Названия административно-территориальных единиц по субъектам Федерации можно найти, проследовав по ссылкам вот из этого шаблона (эта терминология используется в подавляющем большинстве наших статей). Муниципальное деление затронуто тут; там же находятся и термины из 131-ФЗ (городские округа, городские/сельские поселения и т.п.). Виды населённых пунктов частично покрыты в статье types of inhabited localities in Russia.

Ну и конкретика:

• "герб городского поселения Щёлково" = "coat of arms of the Urban Settlement of Shchyolkovo";
• "герб Щёлковского муниципального района" = "coat of arms of Shchylkovsky Municipal District" (заметьте, что по законодательству области и административный, и муниципальный районы называется "Щёлковский", а не "Щёлково").
• "бюрократические навороты" брать в расчёт надо обязательно (хотя что касается символики, у нас тут опять же собака не рылась и бардак полнейший). Если вам известно, что какой-то герб — это герб муниципального образования, то это надо обязательно принять во внимание. У нас же энциклопедия, а не стенгазета :)

Русскоязычная речь моветоном является на страницах обсуждений статей, а ко мне лично можете обращаться как вам удобнее и по любым вопросам :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо огромное! Кое-что я понял (в т.ч. то, что в ФЗ-131 Вы разбираетесь гораздо лучше, чем я). Извиняюсь за непонятливость, но не могли бы Вы проиллюстрировать Ваш тезис про первичность в en.wiki административно-территориальных единиц на примере Shchyolkovo и Ilyinsky Pogost. То есть, какая статья более важна Shchyolkovo — Urban Settlement или Shchyolkovo —citi? (что писать в первой строке: Shchyolkovo — Urban Settlement или Shchyolkovo —citi? И должна ли быть на втором месте по важности, статья Shchylkovsky Municipal District (в бытовой терминологии  —Щёлковский район). Что-то я вообще не нашёл статей про районы Московской области...

Аналогично, соотвествует ли традициям en.wiki статья про Ilyinsky Pogost village in Orekhovo-Zuyevsky district, в которую вставляется пара предложений про rural district (в силу отсутствия планов написания отдельной статьи про Iliynsky rural district. Или первичной долна быть статья про rural district? И называться она должна именно Iliynsky rural district, Moscow oblast? С благодарностью, Gastro-en (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

За непонятливость извиняться не надо; в этой новой системе с административно-территориальными единицами отдельно от муниципальных сам чёрт ногу сломит. Попробую объяснить в упрощённо и в общих чертах.

Все субъекты Российской Федерации, как известно, делятся на части. Административно-территориальное устройство (АТУ) каждого субъекта — это его внутреннее дело, которое регулируется законодательными актами этого субъекта. Из этого, очевидно, следует, что несмотря на схожесть АТУ всех субъектов (все ведь унаследовали систему АТУ с советских времён), в каждом регионе есть небольшие, присущие этому субъекту отличия. В целом, однако, систему АТУ можно генерализировать следующим образом. На верхнем уровне субъект Федерации делится на административные районы и города краевого/областного/республиканского и пр. подчинения. Административные районы многих субъектов далее делятся на сельсоветы/сельские округа/сельские территории (конкретные термины разнятся от территории к территории, но все ведут свои корни к советским сельсоветам), а уже эти сельсоветы содержат в своём составе сельские населённые пункты. Посёлки городского типа (пгт) обычно подчинены административным районам либо непосредственно, либо через поселковые советы (которые, опять-таки, в разных субъектах могут называться по-разному). В тех субъектах Федерации, где пос- и сельсоветы были упразднены (как, например, в Московской области), сельские населённые пункты и пгт административно подчинены непосредственно районам. Города значения федерального субъекта также могут делиться на городские районы.

Смысл системы АТУ заключается прежде всего в обеспечении государства механизмом, в рамках которого осуществляется управление государственными делами (как федеральными, так и уровня субъекта). Примерами таких государственных дел являются, например, выплата пенсий, обеспечение государственной безопасности, призыв в армию и т.д. и т.п.

Перейдём теперь к муниципальному делению. В отличие от деления административно-территориального, которое устанавливается каждым субъектом Федерации непосредственно без вмешательства на федеральном уровне, система местного самоуправления после муниципальной реформы 2004-2005 гг. регулируется федеральным законом №131-ФЗ. Собственно деление на муниципальные единицы остаётся в ведении местного населения (через референдумы, сходы и т.п.), но система и терминология жёстко регулируются федеральным законом. Следует отметить, что 131-ФЗ не содержит инструкций касательно того, как именно должно производиться деление на муниципальные единицы, но на практике повсеместно муниципальные единицы создаются на базе существующих административно-территориальных единиц. Имплементация, опять-таки, разнится от субъекта к субъекту, но чаще всего муниципальные районы создаются на базе одного или нескольких районов административных, городские округа — на базе городов значения федерального субъекта, городские поселения — на базе городов районного значения и пгт, сельские поселения — на базе сельсоветов (но хочу ещё раз подчеркнуть, что исключений из этой базовой схемы также можно наблюдать изрядно). Теоретически возможно, чтобы муниципальные единицы были образованы без какой-либо привязки к единицам административно-территориальным (федеральный закон этого не запрещает), но на практике, насколько мне известно, ни в одном субъекте Федерации такой подход не реализован, а в некоторых субъектах и прямо запрещён законодательством этих субъектов. С практической точки зрения это имеет смысл, поскольку, во-первых, органам местного самоуправления намного проще координировать свою деятельность с органами государственного управления, когда территории их полномочий совпадают, а во-вторых потому, что дореформенные муниципальные единицы (многие из которых были просто переименованы дабы удовлетворять новым требованиям 131-ФЗ) также были образованы в рамках территорий административно-территориальных единиц.

Система муниципального деления, в отличие от АТУ, предназначена прежде всего для обеспечения населения механизмом реализации местного самоуправления, право на которое закреплено Конституцией. В число вопросов, решаемых органами местного самоуправления (МСУ), входят такие повседневные проблемы как, например, благоустройство территории, вывоз отходов, содержание дорог местного значения и т.д. и т.п. В отдельных, законодательно закреплённых случаях органам МСУ также могут делегироваться некоторые обязанности государственных органов.

Прошу прощения, если вся эта информация вам уже была известна, но, думаю, в целях нашей дискуссии лишний раз охватить взором общую картину ни вам, ни мне не помешает.

Отвечая на ваш вопрос о "первичности" административно-территориальных единиц (АТЕ): как я отметил выше, строго говоря, АТЕ не являются законодательно закреплённой базой для формирования муниципальных образований (МО), но поскольку на практике МО образуются именно на базе АТЕ (а не наоборот), то, опять же с практической точки зрения, АТЕ являются единицами первичными, а МО — вторичными. В случае, например, с Щёлково, следует в первую очередь посмотреть на административно-территориальный статус этого города. Как следует из Постановления Губернатора Московкой области №10-ПГ от 29 января 2007 г. ("Об учётных данных административно-территориальных и территориальных единиц Московской области"), Щёлково — это город районного значения, административно подчинённый Щёлковскому району. Соответственно, статья в Википедии должна быть прежде всего про город Щёлково, город районного значения. Муниципально город Щёлково входит в состав городского поселения Щёлково (Urban Settlement of Shchyolkovo), которое, в свою очередь, входит в состав Щёлковского муниципального района, о чём в статье Shchyolkovo и нужно упомянуть. Статью про Shchyolkovo Urban Settlement создать, в принципе, можно, но наполнять её, за исключением базовой статистики, по сути будет нечем и большинство информации будет дубликатом информации из статьи про собственно город.

О районах также следует писать в первую очередь исходя из административного аспекта. Статья про Щёлковский административный район, например, будет называться Shchyolkovsky District. Если бы была нужна статья про Щёлковский муниципальный район, то эта статья называлась бы "Shchyolkovsky Municipal District", но поскольку границы Щёлковского административного и муниципального районов совпадают, то такая статья была бы излишеством. Муниципальный район, конечно же, можно упомянуть в статье про район административный, также как и всю ту немногую информацию, которая касается только муниципального района.

Статьи о районах Московской области у нас есть, но мало, и те что есть зачастую являются базовыми заготовками. Посмотрите на administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast, там сразу видно, что есть, а чего нет. В общем, есть где развернуться :)

Что касается статьи про Ильинский Погост, то под "Ilyinsky rural district", насколько я понял, вы имели в виду "сельское поселение Ильинское". Термин "сельское поселение" у нас традиционно переводится как "rural settlement" (см. subdivisions of Russia#Municipal division), а "rural district" — это, скорее, "сельский район" (сельские районы образовывались в РСФСР в качестве эксперимента в 1960-е гг.; современный термин также имеет отдельное значение, несовместимое с "сельским поселением"). Вообще, что касается терминологии, если вы ознакомитесь со статьями, ссылки на которые я привел в своём предыдущем посте, то проблем у вас быть не должно, ну а целом так и вообще об этом не беспокойтесь. Такие мелкие ошибки я и сам поправлю. Нам гораздо важнее то наполнение, которое вы можете предоставить для статей о российских деревнях. В статье типа Ilyinsky Pogost вам с радостью простят любые мелкие погрешности, поскольку найти информацию и написать об историческом аспекте этой деревни гораздо сложнее, чем сказать, в каком же нафиг сельском поселении она нынче находится или какой у неё индекс. Вот если бы вы ещё могли указывать источники, откуда эта информации взята, то тогда таким статьям вообще цены не будет :)

Отдельные статьи про сельские поселения создавать не надо, поскольку, опять-таки, наполнять их, помимо сухой статистики, будет попросту нечем. А вот про отдельные населённые пункты — милости просим :)

Надеюсь, на ваши вопросы я ответил. Если что-то осталось непонятным (или если где-то я вас больше запутал, чем объяснил), пишите, с радостью отвечу. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for inputting your Russian expertise on the topic of the two different disambiguation pages - it was very helpful! -- Natalya 01:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks for your willingness to listen.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! None of us is infallible (in fact, I find myself rather fallible sometimes!). That's why we get to work together. -- Natalya 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about that; we had all those discussions, and then nothing got changed! One thing I'd like to be sure of before I change it back, though - are there some of the terms at Baikal (disambiguation) that are legitimately named "Baikal", and are not just translations from the Russian? It seems like those would be appropriate to remain at Baikal (disambiguation), while all those article that are just the translation of the Russian word should be back at Baykal (disambiguation). Baikal MCM, for example, seems to be legitimately spelled "Baikal" (as far as I know.. which may not be all that far). Thanks for helping to finish this up, -- Natalya 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, that may actually be the only fishy one, and even then, it is Russian, so can we really know if it's actually named "Baikal", or if the company just romanticized it as such? Other than that link, I think the rest are clear to be moved back. As soon as we can figure this one out, I'll go ahead and merge it all back. -- Natalya 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, Natalya. To answer your question, every single entry on the Baikal (disambiguation) page can be referred to as "Baykal", as all of them are derived from the Russian word "Байкал". Granted, the proper English name of the lake itself is "Baikal", but that doesn't mean "Baykal" is incorrect; it's just not used that often (and only in specialized contests). As for the gun, as it is the company/product English name, seeing it romanized as "Baykal" would be very unusual, but still possible. In any case, if you make an exception for the gun, that would leave only one entry on the page, defeating the purpose of disambiguation altogether.

Now, looking at your question in reverse, the Baykal (disambiguation) page actually does contain a couple of entries which cannot be spelled "Baikal". They include Baykal Kulaksızoğlu and Deniz Baykal—both are Turkish and have nothing to do with the Russian lake. The rest of the entries, again, may be spelled either way in real life. Hope this answers your question—if I still have left something unaddressed, please let me know. Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So, it looks like Baikal MCM is the only thorn in our side. Since it's the only one really spelled "Baikal", under normal circumstances, we'd just have a hatnote linking to it from whatever page was at "Baikal". Since that's a redirect, though, if we followed those guidelines, we'd end up with a hatnote at Lake Baykal pointing to Baykal (disambiguation) and Baikal MCM... which seems sort of silly. My first thought is just to put it at Baykal (disambiguation), but I wonder if we could somehow mark in the hatnote at Lake Baykal that all things spelled "Baikal" or "Baykal" can be found at Baykal (disambiguation)? What do you think? -- Natalya 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that much of a thorn, really. "Baykal" can be used in reference to "Baikal MCM", even though it normally isn't. It is originally a Russian word, after all. So, in my opinion, the original hatnote in Lake Baikal (that was used there before all of the controversy)—{{Redirect2|Baykal|Baikal}}—would do the job just fine. If you are so inclined, another hatnote directing readers to Baikal MCM can be added, but I think it is going to be somewhat redundant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel you are more Russian or American?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs)

I guess, "neither" would be an appropriate answer at this point. Why are you interested?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is coming up because it was indeed created a few hours ago. In respect of sourcing the co-ordinates,please read WP:RS and WP:EL Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, which was not about sourcing in general, but about sourcing the geographic coordinates in particular. WP:RS does not deal with particularities of geographic coordinates, and WP:EL only mentions them in light of the coordinates shown in an article being linked to map sources. The latter, to me, is precisely the tool which can be used as a reference, so {{unsourced-geodata}} seems kind of redundant. What do you expect editors to do, put the ref tags after the coordinates? What's the point? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You will have to raise this with admins, as it's not easy to put in a reference citation with respect to geo-coordinates at present. It is however possible to manualy include a relavent comment in a references section...Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm one concerned admin, and, honestly, while I can imagine how this new template can be useful, I have no clue what reaction you are expecting from the editors now. Why not define the problem first, offer ways to fix it, and only then start tagging dozens of articles? Like you said, there is no easy way to reference the coordinates now, so why not apply yourself to solving that problem first instead of first mass-tagging articles, then having the editors manually insert comments (which are not visible to our readers anyway), and then having to re-reference them once a way to do so properly is devised? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, can you check Talk:Anadyr River. Am I correct that ru:Анадырское плоскогорье is the same thing as Anadyr Range? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the perennial problem with translations of names of geographic features—everyone seems to have their own idea regarding what's supposed to be correct! With Anadyr, the situation is especially confusing. "Anadyr Range" ("Анадырский хребет" in Russian) is an alternative name for Chukchi Range (Чукотский хребет), which itself is a part of the Chukchi Uplands system (Чукотское нагорье). Анадырское плоскогорье is located south-west of the Chukchi Uplands, and is usually translated "Anadyr Plateau". Our Anadyr Range stub most likely refers to some eastern part of the Kolyma Uplands ("Колымское нагорье"), and probably is not the same as either "Анадырское плоскогорье" (which is not a part of the Kolyma Uplands) or "Анадырский хребет" proper (see above). You might want to ask that stub's author to verify where his information came from (the sources listed at the moment sure suck, and if that's all that's available, I'd just prod this stub pending addition of more reliable sources).

That said, however, please don't take my word blindly on all this—I was working primarily from memory and might have very well made a mistake or two (I don't have access to good sources on Russian physical geography at the moment)). Hope this helps at least a little bit. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So where is Anadyr River rises from? Anadyr Plateau? Kolyma Plateau? Kolyma Ranges? Can you help those gentlemen? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I got so carried away with the details that I forgot about the original question! The Anadyr River originates in the Anadyr Plateau (Анадырское плоскогорье), about which we currently do not have an article, and which shouldn't redirect to "Anadyr Range" as it does now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick question: is there such a place in the Kaliningrad Oblast? Supposedly, its German name was Lochstädt. Renata (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, there is one in Ozyorsky District. I can't tell if it's the same as Lochstädt or not, but if it helps, it is located within five kilometers from Maltsevo (54°22′N 21°43′E), and it seems to be the only Pavlovo in Kaliningrad Oblast.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be "near" Kaliningrad... so I am not so sure. But thank you (walking reference guide to Russian villages :P) very much! Renata (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's entirely possible that some other Pavlovo merged with something else in the past, or was renamed, but, unfortunately, Kaliningrad Oblast is one of the (not so few) areas on which the completness of my data leaves much to be desired. I'm afraid you are starting to overestimate my abilities a bit :) The only thing I can state with 100% certainty is that as of today, Pavlovo above is the only place by that name in Kaliningrad Oblast. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, scratch that. There is another Pavlovo in the vicinity of Baltiysk, but I am not sure if it is currently considered a separate rural locality under jurisdiction of the town or is actually a part of the town itself. It is definitely the same as Lochstädt you are looking for, though (see). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is underestimating who, now? :) Thank you again, very very much. Care to update the disambiguation page (or even better, create a stub)? Renata (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I added both Kaliningrad Oblast entries to the dab page, but I did not create a stub. From what I've been able to find, Pavlovo/Lochstädt was merged into Baltiysk some time between the 1970s and the 1990s (which is why I couldn't find it right away). Locals still seem to refer to it unofficially as a separate settlement, but since officially it's not the case, whatever information one may have on Lochstädt should really go to the Baltiysk article. Myself, I don't really have anything to write about Lochstädt save what I've mentioned in this section, and although I could translate portions from here, I'd rather leave that task to someone who knows both Russian and the history of the area in question (some of the terminology is way over my head—I have no clue who an "amber master"/"янтарный магистр" is supposed to be, for example). Let me know if there is anything else I can help with, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's perfect as is. Thank you for the PDF link! I already used it to look up same other village. And sorry if I won't do much about these towns. My Russian is pretty much non-existent, and my to-do list does not get smaller, only longer, I am afraid. Renata (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your input regarding the proposed merger and removal of names, removal of this info and the requested move. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, the administrative division of Polish territories after partitions article is supposed to serve as an overview of administrative division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw, and administrative division of Congress Poland, correct? I can't say I like the existing implementation all that much (there is too much overlapping and intertwining between the articles on administrative divisions and the general history articles), but the idea itself seems to have merit. The name of the article definitely needs changing, though; to what exactly, I have no opinion, but you'll have to agree on the new title based on the existing academic studies of the subject (only if it is impossible would the article fall under WP:SYN).

I'd have to agree with the removal of Polish names here, primarily on the grounds of this being the English Wikipedia, in which English names matter the most. Polish names can be added to the articles on the actual governorates in cases where doing so is warranted.

In this edit, I understand Irpen's intent, but it doesn't seem to agree with what the paragraph intends to convey: it does not claim that all of the territories in the list were Polish or Lithuanian, but rather lists the governorates into which the territories that were Polish or Lithuanian had been incorporated. I can see how the list can be misintepreted if one takes the current title of the article into consideration.

All this is strictly my personal opinion, of course, but I hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eziki, thanks for your request at my talk to comment. My thoughts are outlined elsewhere, mainly at Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions.

The topic of this article just does not make sense. It arbitrary defines "Polish territories" in the context of the 19th century but based on the past history. Further, it pastes together the Adm. Div. of the Ru Empire, of Austria-Hungary and of Germany while these are completely separate (and unrelated) topics. There is no singular concept of the "administrative division of whatever was Poland at this or that point of time". Administrative divisions exists of the political entities, not some arbitrary defined territories. There cannot be "administrative division of the Dnieper Upland" or of the "Former Roman Empire". There can be administrative divisions of the states or units that formed by the time but there is nothing in common between the Austrian and Russian administrative divisions to paste them into one article. The only political entity that can be called Poland in the context of the time was Congress Poland. Administrative division of Congress Poland is a legitimate topic and no one has a problem with it.

More at . --Irpen 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Irpen. I understand these concerns, but still think that the article has a right to exist as a general overview. If the subject of "division of Polish territories after partitions" (or whatever other, more neutral title can be come up with) is studied (and, I trust, Polish historians wouldn't have missed this opportunity), then it is only fair that we have an article about it. Part of the problem here is lack of sources in the article as of present, but since Piotrus stated that such sources do exist, I'm sure he'll eventually find and add them (thus showing that the definition is not "arbitrary"). Even if such studies are not common outside of Poland, we should still cover them as doing so would help combat the systemic bias. Of course, if that's the case, proper sourcing and clear identification become even more important. If no such sources can be demonstrated within reasonable time, well, then it's another story entirely. Anyway, I'll wait for Piotrus' reply to the above before going on with speculations any further :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure, there are sources about Poland after partitions. And they go straight to the History of Poland articles and its subarticles. There are also sources of the administrative divisions of the 19th century empires. And they should be (and are) used in the articles devoted to the administrative divisions of the empires. However, no sources have been demonstrated specifically dedicated to the administrative division of western Russia, eastern Germany and northern Austria together. Such arbitrary topic is non-scholarly nonsense just as the "administrative division of the former US possessions (Philippines and Cuba) in the 21st century" attempted to be studied as related. This is not systemic bias. But there is more. Contrary to the title, the article covers territories that where never "Polish" in any sense even formerly. The problem of hodge-podging disparate stuff together in an unscholarly way just just prove the point and air nationalist grievances plagues the Wikipedia much more than any systemic bias. --Irpen 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect - as I pointed out earlier (and apparently was ignored by you) there is a big body of Polish literature dedicated to administrative division of Polish territories under partitions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The administrative division of Polish territories after partitions was geared not as much as an overview of those articles - although it is certainly related - but as a place do detail how the former Polish territories were administered by other countries during the partitions. In that regard, it is similar to Administrative division of Polish territories during World War II. I am not sure what English name would be better; the current one is a translation of Polish terms that I listed here (so while the topic may be new to English literature, it has been researched in Poland).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, Irpen, do you mind if I consolidate this thread with the rest of discussion on Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions and reply there? I wasn't originally planning to get involved apart from providing my point of view, but, apparently, I am now, so we might as well keep it all in one place. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can repost anything I said on any Wikipedia page anywhere you like. --Irpen 18:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I moved it to Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions#Another opinion and will post a reply there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to this, are you trying to make a point edit? I don't understand why it is important to note that, and the unnecessary "right" alignment. Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As it was discussed on numerous occasions before, and as the current Ba[y/i]kal-related dab-article schema would attest, both "Baykal" and "Baikal" term refer first and foremost to the lake. That is precisely why both Baykal and Baikal redirect to the Baikal Lake article, and this is precisely why this fact needs to be mentioned in the hatnote (which, by the way, was added by Natalya, not me). As you have probably already noticed, there are quite a few complications and little things to be taken into consideration when building the dab-redirect schema here—it is not you straight-off-the-mill dab situation! After having been educated about all of the intricacies of the situation numerous times, it is simply beyond me why you continue to persist with your simplistic approach and overly literal interpretation of the MOSDAB guidelines. If it's of any consolation, I assure you, I am not building this case as a precedent for further attacks on MOSDAB (no matter how intensly I may dislike the wording of some of its clauses); this is simply a truly exceptional situation which needs to be taken care of with extreme care and preferrably by people who not only know the guidelines, but are also acquainted with the topics covered by the dab. Please keep an open mind and accept the fact that some situations warrant exceptions or customization. Also, if you wish to mediate this with the help of an independent party, you are quite welcome to do so—I'll be willing to participate. What I will not be willing to do is to sacrifice the convenience of our readers in favor of some guidelines which were not intended to handle such complex situations in the first place. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to battle or anything, I just don't agree with the current hatnote. It's superfluous. A simple {{Redirect|Baykal}} is all that's necessary. Check out the dabbing at Friend or Foe? and Friend or FOE?. I'm willing to do something similar here. Again, what's wrong with this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What about people who entered "Baikal" into the search box and landed in the article about the lake? If they were actually looking for the lake (as most of them would), there is no problem, but what if they were looking for one of the other places called "Байкал" and happened to use the "Baikal" romanization? Your version of the hatnote does not give them any clue as to where to look next. Why intentionally leave the readers wondering when a simple tweak to the hatnote addresses the situation just fine?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Очень тронут Вашим вниманием, считаю его авансом и постараюсь этот аванс отработать.

Осознаю свою вину за затянувшийся тайм-аут. Попытаюсь оправдаться.

Мне бы хотелось подготовить ряд (несколько десятков) небольших статеек по старообрядческим поселениям — сёлам и деревням Юго-Востока нынешней Московской области. В основном, гуслицких, но затронуть и Вохну, Гжель, Патриарщину и, возможно, ещё кое-что. В прошлые выходные объездил Заход (это отдельный район Гуслиц). Завтра собираюсь проехать ещё несколько гуслицких деревень. Сегодня привёз пару килограммов литературы по этим поселениям. К счастью, по Гуслицам, в отличие от некоторых иных исторических российских районов, имеются качественные краеведческие исследования. И они продолжаются, и всё время появляются новинки. Основные намётки плана действий следующие.

1-ый этап. Готовлю пару-тройку десятков черновиков статей «User:Gasrto-en/Название села». Каждая из двух-трёх строчек рутинной информации, плюс координаты, плюс одна-две фотографии (у меня подготовлено много - но далёко не по всем деревенькам; очень часто даже для богатой историей деревни бывает трудно найти ракурс или объект в деревни, чтобы показать её "лица не общее выражение"; или с погодой бывает что-то не так). Никакие исторические "изюминки" этих деревень в эти статьи на этом этапе не вписываются. Аналогично как по Слободищам и Ильинскому Погосту. Плюс вносятся источники, какие у меня имеются по этим деревням.

2-ой этап. Буду просить Вас выверить названия на английском этих деревень.

3-ий этап. Готовлю аналогичные заготовки-заготовок «User:Gasrto-en/Историческая область». Вот здесь опять буду просить Вас поучаствовать в отношении терминологии и названий. Сейчас даже не могу окончательно сформулировать вопросы. Собственно из-за этого "не могу" я ничего и не писал на эту тему, и не отвечал Вам, всё надеялся, что вот-вот их сформулирую и тогда обращусь к Вам с просьбой о помощи, но, похоже ещё нужно неделю-две чтобы у меня всё это уложилось в голове.

4-ый этап. Подготовленные на 1-ом и 2-ом этапе материалы переводятся из «User:Gasrto-en/» в основную область и очень постепенно, не торопясь (я не могу писать про деревню, если в ней не побываю несколько раз), дополняются мною или иными Участиками-User-ами специфичными для этих сёл-деревень фактами.

5-ый этап. Переводятся в основную область статьи по историческим районам (про Гуслицы таковая есть, но очень короткая) и постепенно наполняются.

Просил бы Вас быть куратором этой программы.

При этом "появляющиеся" новые сёла-деревни (исторические районы) также включаются в этот процесс. Каких-либо ограничений «старообрядческая» или «новобрядческая», Подмосковная или Нижегородская деревня устанавливать тоже не хочется. Что интересно, для чего есть материалы, к чему лежит душа - про то и пишем.

С огромной благодарностью! Gastro-en (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. Я понимаю, что план целиком не реализуется (хотим как лучше, а получится, как всегда). Но и помечтать тоже хочется. И если даже половина или треть задуманного получится - тоже будет, ИМХО, неплохо (только в Гуслицах более 60 деревень было!). Gastro-en (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Здравствуйте, Гастро! Насчёт задержек с ответом особо не извиняйтесь — люди все занятые; если не отвечали, значит было не до того. Что касается собственно ответа, то не могу даже выразить, как он меня порадовал. Я сам, к сожалению, такой роскоши, как самому ездить по тем местам, о которых хотелось бы написать, позволить себе не могу (я и в России-то вообще уже восемь лет как не был), и посему вам очень по этому поводу завидую :)

По наполнению статей я помочь смогу скорее всего только минимально — литература некоторая у меня есть, но, во-первых, она очень общая или краткая, и касается в основном административных, а не исторических аспектов, и во-вторых, с тем, что вы сможете найти, посещая деревни сами, ей никак не сравниться. Килограммами я свои источники оценивать я не могу :) Но вот что касается переводов, выверок, оформления и прочих технических мелочей, то тут я вам помогу с превеликим удовольствием.

В тех статьях, которые вы начинаете в своём пользовательском пространстве, можете просто помечать каким-либо образом те места, с которыми по вашему мнению я мог мы помочь или уточнить, и я их буду просматривать по мере возможности, а вообще даже очень короткие статейки-заготовки можно начинать прямо в основном пространстве — у нас тут с этим делом проще, нежели в ру_вики и даже вот такие карлы-уродцы имеют право на жизнь.

Ну и разумеется, если у вас будут ко мне какие-нибудь вопросы, то обращайтесь в любой момент. Looking forward towards future cooperation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Если не секрет, почему интерес именно к старообрядческим поселениям?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Шаблон защищён, поэтому я не смогу добавить новую карту. --Obersachse (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

А что конкретно надо поменять в шаблоне? Только собственно карту, или что-то ещё?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the matter raised here. Perhaps soon it will be discussed in more public space, but I though I should notify you early on of the discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which names are predominantly used in English academic works on the subject—Polish or Russian ones? I wouldn't know that, as I tend to work mostly with the Russian sources and would tend to use a Russian name myself.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Я подготовил список деревень для мини-проекта, который мы с Вами обсуждали. Старался названия районов, областей и т.п. писать такими, какие уже есть в en-wiki. Был бы признателен Вам, если бы Вы посмотрели на этом этапе:

• Корректность написания на английском названий деревень, рек и административных структур.
• Корректность наименований статей, посвященных деревням и рекам для en-wiki (включая названия виртуальных статей, посвящённых административным центрам и структурам: пока я их писать не планирую, но в тех статьях, которые будут писаться, хотелось бы употреблять их названия уже правильно).

Как вариант, откорректируйте, пожалуйста, то, что считаете нужным, непосредственно на странице User:Gastro-en/The small project «The Russian villages», а дальше я сам всё подправлю в сответствии с Вашими замечаниями.

Мои сомнения.

1. Так как в некоторых районах нередко встречаются населённые пункты с одинаковым наименованим, то тогда приходится в название вставлять Rural Settlement. Если подходить формально, то название статьи про деревню может, таким образом, получиться четырёхзвенным: Деревня, муниципальный округ, район, область. А это всё-таки длинновато.

2. Разделяю Ваш подход, что нет необходимости создавать статьи, посвященные муниципальным округам. У меня, тем более, такого желания нет вообще. Но, с другой стороны, где-то хотелось бы иметь списки населённых пунктов, входящих в состав муниципальных округов, хотя бы теоретически; иначе получается, что от статьи про конкретную деревню к статье про страну по иерархии ссылок добраться можно, а обратно — нет). Если не создавать отдельных статей, то такие списки (и иную информацию) можно помещать, например, в статье про центральный населённый пункт муниципального округа (в виде отдельного раздела, на который, таким образом, можно будет ссылаться из других статей). Либо договориться, что такая информация должна быть в статьях про районы (желательно, опять, в виде отдельных разделов для каждого муниципального округа, чтобы, опять-таки, можно было бы ссылаться на муниципальные округа из других статей). Либо ещё каким-либо иным образом.

3. При написании на английском у меня самые большие проблемы с русской буквой «Х»: Заход (историческая область): Zakhod или Zahod? Хотеичи и Новохаритоново: Hoteichi, Novoharitonovo или Khoteichi, Novokharitonovo и т.д.?

4. При написании статьи про деревню, я пишу так: village (не уточняю, что это деревня), а про село: village (selo). Это правильно?

С благодарность, Gastro-en (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Готовлю вопросы про волости, уезды, губернии (и далее, про «исторические области», «станы»).

Спасибо за инициативу, обязательно просмотрю всё на этой и/или на следующей неделе. Что касается вопросов:

1. Длинновато, но правильно. Названия сельских поселений в России повторяются также часто, как и названия сельских населённых пунктов (что и не удивительно, поскольку первые чаще всего называются по своим административным центрам), поэтому во избежание неоднозначностей, для населённых пунктов, являющихся одноимёнными в пределах района, правильным названием будет именно "Имя, сельсовет (или сельское поселение, если сельсоветов нет), район, субъект Федерации" (см. WP:NC:CITY#Russia). Вообще, об этом особенно не беспокойтесь — я сейчас как раз работаю над составлением базы данных всех населённых пунктов РФ, и подобные неоднозначности могу разрешить очень легко. Всё везде всегда можно переименовать и поправить, если надо.
2. Списки населённых пунктов (с разбивкой по сельсоветам/сельским поселениям) должны размещаться в статьях о соответствующих районах. См., например, Giaginsky District — там как раз должен быть понятен общий подход и структура. Если статьи о районе не существует, ничего страшного, можно подождать, пока она появится (или, если есть желание, написать самому) и уже тогда добавить список.
3. Согласно WP:RUS, буква "х" во всех случаях передаётся только как "kh".
4. Насчёт правильно это или нет можно, наверное, спорить, но в существующих статьях пока что подход именно такой. Поскольку лучшего решения пока никто не предложил, рекомендую так же продолжать и далее.

Жду ваших дальнейших вопросов :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Огромное спасибо! И за предельно чёткие и исчерпывающие ответы, и за ту немалую работу, которую Вы проделали с моим списком! Принимаю Ваши рекомендации и корректировки в качестве руководства к действию.Gastro-en (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Совершенно никаких проблем. Я и так над этой темой работаю, поэтому мне совсем не в тягость. Так что обращайтесь не стесняясь по любому поводу :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ezhiki - I think the issue is that Kuznetsky redirects to 'Kuznetsky District'... fonetikli (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not only that. It would be trivial to simply turn the "Kuznetsky" redirect into a dab (which would include a link to "Kuznetsky District") and then mend the backlinks. However, neither "Leninsk-Kuznetsky" nor "Kuznetsk Alatau" are ever referred to as simply "Kuznetsky"; "Kuznetsky" is simply a part of the names of these two entities, so these two entries would not belong on a "Kuznetsky" dab page anyway. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough :) It seemed like it would have been useful to me but as you will tell I am not an expert! Cheers, fonetikli (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you come visit the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am forwarding this to Jimp, who re-designed the whole concept of {{ft to m}} a while ago and is now in better position to fix this problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. It was a strange & unexpected error as explained on the talk page. Be sure to tell me if things are still amiss ... (besides the transclusion of the doc page ... that's odd but no great harm ... ?). JIMp _talk·cont 03:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for what I can tell it is working.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you follow up with him on further problems noted at User_talk:Jimp#.7B.7BFt_to_m.7D.7D.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware you did it last year for the Krais of Russia map, so for now I did a small note on the omission of the new krai made this year for the time being. Thanks. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I, unfortunately, lack the resources to update this map at the moment. It is on my to-do list, however. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ezhiki! If you have time, would you mind taking a look at some Russia-related articles I worked on today? (Deima, Instruch, Krasnaya, Krasnaya River, Romincka Forest (specifically "Krasny Les") Thanks! Olessi (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Olessi! Here are the changes I've made:

• moved "Deima" to Deyma River (per WP:RUS and according to the river naming conventions, which require that "river" is included in the article's title);
• moved "Instruch" to Instruch River (river naming conventions);
• merged "Krasnaya" into Krasny (for Russian adjectives, masculine form is always the main entry), also removed several entries such as Krasnaya Sloboda, as none of those entities is ever referred to as simply "Krasny/Krasnaya/Krasnoye"; the adjective is simply a part of their names.

Not sure what you wanted me to do about Romincka Forest—it looks fine to me, so I made no changes. If there was something specific you wanted me to comment on there, please let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at WP:RIVER (something I haven't done for a while), it seems the project no longer care if the articles are called simply "X" or "X River", so feel free to revert that part of my changes if you feel it is necessary and/or beneficial. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at everything. As long as all the redirects get to the same placed, the river titles aren't as big a deal. I had expanded Romincka Forest to include its parts in Russia; my concern was the accuracy of transliterating Красный лес, since I do not speak Russian. Olessi (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The romanization was correct. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have time, you may want to contribute to populate the following [Category:Ghost towns in Siberia]. Thank you Mohonu (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I will keep this category in mind from now on, but I don't really have a list of (potential) articles to start populating it with. If you have any specific places in mind on which articles don't yet exist, feel free to let me know and I'll see if I can find anything to write about them. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Frunzensky District, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frunzensky District. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tlesher (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. This is not a disambiguation page; it is a set index.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:C to F has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ––Bender235 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to our kind colleagues, the basis of naming conventions Wikipedia:Requested_moves#25_July_2008. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But can you show any English sources which use Russian-based names as opposed to Polish-based? As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I work predominantly with sources in Russian, hence I am inclined to use Russian-based names in English, an approach which is does not always produce correct results. If you happen to have English sources which can counterbalance the links (of rather marginal persuasive value, in my opinion) shown as proof in this RM, I'll gladly support leaving the articles where they are now; otherwise, seeing how minimal proof (map links) is better than no proof, there are simply no grounds on which I can oppose. Sorry for not being of more help, but my interest in administrative divisions which presently constitute territories outside of Russia is minimal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed a link on the the notice board: , . Moreover I would understand for a case like Warsaw, which I left as Warsaw Governorate, but what about smaller cities? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've left a comment there. The bottom line: I believe each of the governorates in question needs to be looked at individually, not as a whole group with "Russian-based" and "Polish-based" names as the only options for the whole group.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I'd appreciate you putting in an appearance at Talk:Konstantin Balmont regarding my move and your reversion. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Republics of Russia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at the edit I made.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Sorry. Those ten-thousand something bytes looked just horrible on the changes page and the text per se was good (if double, though). :) De728631 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob; happens to the best of us :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls help to imrove the situation with Volga Finns. Pls have a look at this talk page. Just trying to appeal to common sense. Thank you anyway. --Khazar II (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but this is not a topic I know much about, so I'm afraid my opinion on that talk page will not be of much value. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just a irregular cat tagger who saw a lot of cat changed to Cat by the bot (!!) last night and wondered if it was really worth the effort and time (over 12 hours on the australian project material) - I am not as cluey as some on the Australian project who seem to have a better handle on the assessment and template and etc side - my apologies for casting any possible questionable aspersions at russavia's talk page as well - If anyone ever gives an idea of why and how the russian project might benefit from such a going over - I'll either let you know or direct them to you - sorry to have been a nuisance - cheers SatuSuro 15:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. I am still very interested to hear Russavia's side of the story—it seems it was him who's been tagging many of the cats I later untagged (without realizing that a human person tagged them in the first place), so I imagine he must have a reason of his own. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope I didnt edge him into it in anyways - I think I once mentioned about tagging being a way of good project management - but hey each project has slightly different template structure (the tweaking of templates is well beyond me) which means in WP Australia I tag class cat for category pages - but in WP Indonesia and WP New Zealand I tag cats with NA - I simply try to maintain consistency - I think a lot rests with template tweakers - maybe the russia project needs someone with the sufficinet knowledge of the coding to have a look inside its project template - we had an outsider muck around with the australian template a week or two ago - did a good job - SatuSuro 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can fix the template no problem (it was me who added the C-class to it), but like I said, I just don't see the utility of having the counts of cats and templates in the stats. If someone enlightens me on this point later, I may very well change my attitude towards that practice :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK well thats where I am of no help at all - I had developed an automatic response to red discussion tags because I saw so many Australian and Indonesian categories that were not tied into the overall project in any way (they were created but had no project tags) - And I evolved the idea and perceived that a well managed project is one that has all categories tied into a list of either NA or Cat category pages which in some way tied in with the assessment or other thingoes - and not a drop of science or rational coding was involved - just a personal predeliction- so I am sorry I cannot explain further the more technical issues - I'm signing off now - cheers and sorry to have been a nuisance and not very helpful at all SatuSuro 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically as far as i can tell from my perspective of total ignorance the template is stuffed or has an internal issue if it cannot cope with cats. Please could you help the person at my talk wh is having problem with the article Chicken ? looks like a serial pest or puppets playing with the poor editor - in your time zone - I am tryng to get off - cheers SatuSuro 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably storm in a thimble - I keep forgetting to llook at histories- it has got me into interesting waters over the last day or so :( SatuSuro 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Better be vigilant and overcautious than sorry :) No trouble at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose what i should do is dig up the name of the person who rejigged the australian template and offer them the challenge as to your problem - and I am intrigued to think that there hasnt been some form of standardisation across all wikipedia projects re formatting - hey i said id be off an hour ago i gotta get off - cheers - and thanks for putting up with me and my ignorance(s) SatuSuro 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Autonomous okrugs of Russia (edit talk links history) ...
   via Autonomous district (edit talk links history)
   and Template:Types_of_administrative_country_subdivision(edit talk links history)

Beg to differ, but they are certainly one of the larger Administrative districts of Russia... and hence that would be the best translation... alternatively, Autonomous province which redirects to Autonomous area... but "Autonomous" anything is void of meaning in English.

Did you see the talk? All such articles ought be Districts of FOO names. This is not a loan word we need... just one to be mentioned in a lang template in the article. (And yes, I remember you're Russian. This is not a ego thing, but a what conveys sense question. The terms don't have any coverage or usage in English.)

The concept is there and that's all that matters. "Okrug" and "Oblast" and other non-English names don't convey anything but confusion. The slavic term is just confusing to native speakers of English. Those category names using the term need changed too, imho.

LASTLY, reverting someone is a hostile act... should only be used as a LAST RESORT after discussion. As an admin, you ought be ashamed! // FrankB 20:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Frank! I knew I'd lure you here :)

First of all, "okrug" and "oblast" are not just words of Slavic origin, they are proper English words, albeit not very common at that (probably just as obsure as, say, "houri", "escarpment", "accoutrements", or "slovenliness", all of which have nice, non-confusing synonyms). The reason why we use those words are not because we want to dazzle our readers with our knowledge of obsure terms, but because substituting them with simpler synonyms would bring more confusion than it would solve. Consider "okrug", for example. In common speach, I myself would refer to any kind of okrug as "district" or "area" (depending on my mood), but in an encyclopedia about everything we must also consider how such simplification works with everything else. If we abolish "okrug" all together and start to consistently use "district", how are we to discuss the administrative divisions of (autonomous) okrugs, which are themselves composed of districts? How are we to convey the fact that Kamchatka Krai, for example, is divided into districts and an okrug (which itself is divided into districts)? With "oblast", if we were to use "province" instead, how are we to distinguish oblasts and provinces (which is a separate term) of Imperial Russia? Should we always explain that we use "province" to refer only to oblasts, and not to krais (some sources do that)? Yes, it is possible to eventually provide explanation in every single instance we use the same lay term to refer to (sometimes wildly different) concepts, but why do it the hard way when we can simply use the proper term, link it, and provide an explanation in an article about that term, or to refer the reader to Wiktionary? I see you are relying on David Kernow's work quite heavily, but we had this discussion with David (who is a fascinating individual, whom I'd love to see back to active editing), and he eventually understood the magnitude of the problem and became an active proponent of using the loanwords (at least in case with Russia, I don't know about other countries).

And no, I am not ashamed to have reverted you :) I normally get ashamed when I have to revert someone twice or more (in which case I realize that I should have brought the issue up somewhere), but once is perfectly normal in my book. No hard feelings, please! It's just that this particular issue has been beaten to death a couple of years ago, and the consensus was to keep things as they are now. I'd very much like not to have to dig this dead horse up again, but will, of course, gladly explain whatever points remain unclear. And hey, nice to see you back editing! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While you're about... A) recheck that talk (See the "{done}") B) and check over and edit per this need // FrankB 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to go now; will reply tomorrow, sorry!.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too... but this should be an easy win, if you're counting coup. re: And hey, nice to see you back editing! I really haven't ever left... save in fits and spurts, always too much to do. Be well. Someone really needs to re-energize Wikipedia:Wikproject country subdivisions as I noted in the middle of this at WP:COUNTRIES. ttfn // FrankB 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only coup I'm counting is the number of times I made an improvement or reduced inconsistencies. I don't normally do that against innocent fellow editors who happen to disagree with me :) Anyway, I couldn't wait the whole day, so I've just replied to your post on Subdivisions of Russia and Autonomous okrugs of Russia. As for you being back to editing, I am just glad you are back in the content space, not just tweaking those templates every time I run into you :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looking for your opinion on what, and why, you personally think makes for a better list/article - Diplomatic missions of Russia or User:Russavia/DipMis? And Diplomatic missions in Russia or this version of same article? Just know that neither article is complete, a lot of prose is yet to be added. Will give you a little background, if need be, after you answer that question ;) --Россавиа ^Диалог 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Without doubt, I like the second version better (the one using tables). The downside to using tables is that the page loads much slower on slow connections, but I think the benefit of being able to sort the table outweighs that downside in spades. It also helps provide links to the individual embassies more neatly than a list-only approach would allow: with lists the pages are extremely long with a lot of unused white space. Pictures of individual embassies are located in the corresponding rows in the table; with lists, one would have to hunt them down on the right side, which is not very easy considering the article's length. Does that help you any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I am of course of the same opinion. Given the under-development of many Russian topics on WP, how important do you think it is for WP:RUSSIA to have such a list (my tabulated list) over the list as it exists now, particularly in terms of downline article development (such as ambassadors) and the foreign relations of Russia in particular. I did try to implement the tabulated list, but that has met with resistance, as you can see from here and here. As you can see in the discussion, a suggestion was made to create Ambassadors of Russia, which I did after getting pissed off by certain remarks by an editor that I should be creating content...perhaps you could understand my frustration there...but that ambassadors list will be kept but changed completely, to another sortable list, but instead of being on the missions, it will include details such as diplomatic rank, date of appointment, date that credentials were presented, etc, so that list as it looks now will not exist in sometime in the not too distant future. There seems to be some support from others for the type of formatted list as I have presented, however, within WP:FOR there seems to a clique for the status quo, but I don't believe that dumbing down of WP (that's how I see it) is a good thing, particularly when concerns raised about information being sourced (like Russia is the USSR, not) is about the most valid point raised. After I reformatted Diplomatic missions in Russia some time ago, it was instantly reverted by another editor without edit summary (that's the exact link I gave above), and I reverted the change as it was a clear improvement. As you can see from that article, it is very much developed with redlinks disappearing day by day. Yes, some may be stubs, but I don't see that being a true reason for hesitation to change formats, because stubs can and do grow, after all WP is a collaborative effort, as Mongolia–Russia relations and Russia–Ukraine relations show (those are two articles I created as stub only, and they are developed and looked after). So basically, I am wanting to know how important for WP:RUSSIA do you think such lists are, particularly when they allow for article development and also help WP:BIAS. Another example of this hesitation is seen here --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey mate, just a 'ding dong' to let ya know I'm still here ;) No rush to get back in regards to this, just didn't want ya to forget ;) Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not forgotten, just am, I guess, procrastinating (sorry!). Is there any urgency to this, by the way, or can I take my time? If there is, I will, of course, move this to the top of my list. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No urgency at all. Whenever is fine. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the overall importance of having a tabulated list over having a plain vanilla bulleted lists, I have to say that it is not very high for this type of content (i.e., which is of mid to low importance on the assessment scale). However, since the topic has a vast potential for growth and currently receives a fair amount of editors' attention (even if the only active contributor is you), in my opinion, it means that the styling choice should depend on preferences of the editors who work on that content, providing that those preferences do not conflict with usability issues and break no MOS styling guidelines. Having someone walk-in on your work and start telling that it is, as far as formatting it goes, no good, is at best rude and at worst disruptive and unproductive. I diligently tried to follow the discussions and the RfC, and although the whole picture is still not very whole in my head, I am getting an impression that your formatting choice is being opposed simply because someone clearly does not like it (for reasons I am still having trouble to understand). A bulleted list for a topic like this is a good solution in the beginning, when the list is incomplete and only the most important points need to be addressed from the article creation point of view. As the contents grow, however, a bulleted list becomes not only unwieldy from the workflow organization point of view, but also confusing to readers, which means other solutions need to be sought. Laying out the contents in a table is often such a solution, as it allows for presenting the contents in a more compact and organized manner.

Creating a separate ambassadors of Russia article is probably inevitable in the long run, but at this point, considering the sheer number of red links, it seems to merely mirror a subset of data from the "diplomatic missions of Russia" article and serves no useful purpose (i.e., it provides no additional value).

All in all, process-wise, your work seems to be very similar to what I do (developing the articles about the administrative divisions of Russia; a process in which creation of lists plays an important role), so I very well understand (and, unfortunately, know from experience) how important it is to have a development process that works out for major contributors, even though it may occasionally come in conflict with formatting preferences of editors whose only interest (and sometimes ability) is in upholding their petty styling choices. You can count on my wholehearted support in this matter. As long as your formatting choices are in line with MOS (which they are), there should be no question in whose preferences are to be adopted (major contributors', duh!). My advice in dealing with formatting sticklers is to take a good look at WP:WIAFL and try to bring your styling choices in line with that guideline's recommendations (I assume you will want to nominate your work for FL once it is complete?). Item #4 of the guidelines, for example, explicitly recommends using table sort facilities, which alone should give you plenty of leverage. Same goes for visual appeal (#7)—once the red links are taken care of, the choice between an ugly long bulleted list and a neat table really becomes a no-brainer. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering that. Your thoughts mirror mine in almost every way. I have re-introduced the list and have left comments on the talk page there with my reasoning for developing the list in this way. Gotta get cracking on the redlinks, develop what needs to be developed and unlink those which won't pass the notability grade. If you could keep an eye on that discussion that would be great, and weigh in if need be. Thanks man. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I supplied my comments on that talk page and will keep watching it, so, I guess, I am now officially involved :) Please let me know if this spills over to somewhere else.

On an ironic note, having read Kransky's reasons and having applied them to my own Wikipedia work, it seems that I should have never even started to develop the administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea list (which is now featured), because, obviously, it is out of line with the formatting of every other list in the series (example 1, example 2). Now someone has to start working on 80+ other lists, oh noes, what a disaster! Perhaps we should simply revert the Adygea's list to this wonderfully consistent state, eh? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the talk page, and your example of the Adygea divisions list is indeed a prime example of the development of lists, and the different ways in which the lists can be presented to reach FL. I have also asked for discussion to move to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists, as this is going to affect all articles, it's only fair that it be out in the open for all editors to have their input on. I will also be using Diplomatic missions in Russia as an example for the in articles and how they can be presented. If you could keep an eye on that discussion and input as needed that would be appreciated. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll certainly keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi remember me? DO you still want the following maps? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Location map Russia Adygea
• Template:Location map Russia Amur Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Arkhangelsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Astrakhan Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Belgorod Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Bryansk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Chelyabinsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Chita Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Chukotka Autonomous Okrug
• Template:Location map Russia Irkutsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Ivanovo Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kaliningrad Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kaluga Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kemerovo Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kirov Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kostroma Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kurgan Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Kursk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Leningrad Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Lipetsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Magadan Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Moscow Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Murmansk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Nizhny Novgorod Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Novgorod Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Novosibirsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Omsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Orenburg Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Oryol Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Penza Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Pskov Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Rostov Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Ryazan Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Sakhalin Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Samara Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Saratov Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Smolensk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Sverdlovsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Tambov Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Tomsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Tver Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Tula Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Tyumen Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Udmurtia
• Template:Location map Russia Ulyanovsk Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Vladimir Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Volgograd Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Vologda Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Voronezh Oblast
• Template:Location map Russia Yaroslavl Oblast

Sure I do, and not just the oblasts :) I did tie in the existing ones into the {{Infobox Russian city}}, by the way (see Petrozavodsk for an example). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats good. Its just I have been watching Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor and it absolutely amazed me how enormous Russia and at the full extent of the Soviet Union was before its downfall. Kazakhstan alone is the size of most of europe and even today the size of Russia is so vast. The size of many of the oblasts are larger than many countries put together. I'll create them for you then, all you had to do is ask. I'll see too if I can improve the graphic on the maps later using paint art if I can. Perhaps a green and pastel shade would be more attractive than a white and grey map. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if all I gotta do is ask, then I am most certainly asking now :) Just keep me informed as the new maps become available, because I'll need to add them to the list of maps the city template pulls them from. I don't have a preference as far as the color choice goes. Consistency would be nice, but since these maps are not going to appear alongside one another, different color schemes on different maps are not that big of a problem. Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm yes. one thing though I was sure Dutch wikipedia had maps for all of the oblasts. If possible could you find me the Russian maps and the coordinates for them? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the ones we have now originally came (I believe) from the Russian Wikipedia—folks there develop these maps and then put them into templates along with the coordinates. This is not a quick job, as you would imagine, and recently they seem to have paused (I don't think they produced any new maps since the last we talked, but I'm going to double-check). Apart from those maps, I don't know if any other maps are available. What I know for sure is that you can't take any random map and just approximate the coordinates; the map must use a specific projection in order to work with the geographic coordinates. Don't ask me about the details, though, because I am hardly an expert on those matters and am just passing on the information I've learned from others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the handful of ones from dutch wikipedia for now then -just did Tomsk. If I can find the maps for all of them I'll set them all up. If you can read them on russian wikipedia or copy the digits for me into english (there should be top, bottom, left, right coordinates) then I should be able to do it ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Right I;ve just done Kaliningrad. What I need you to do now is to look at this and provide a url link to the russian wiki equivalent next to each of the red linked templates above. Could you do this for me? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) OK, here are the ones available in the Russian, but not in the English Wikipedia (with coordinates):

• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Адыгея (Republic of Adygea)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Чукотка (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Калининградская область (Kaliningrad Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Костромская область (Kostroma Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Магаданская область (Magadan Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Нижегородская область (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Свердловская область (Sverdlovsk Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Тверская область (Tver Oblast)
• ru:Шаблон:ПозКарта Россия Удмуртия (Udmurt Republic)

I don't know if there is anything in addition to these in other wikis.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Right I'll get on with creating these then ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes its disappointing that the other wikis didn't think to make maps for them all. I've done all the ones I could. I hope the others become available in the near future. OK? I've created about 12 new ones ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did however find some oblasts and raion maps here. Perhaps some of the raion articles could use maps from the commons if they don't already? ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth stubbing the raions within each oblast. E.g Ilyinsky District, Ivanovo Oblast . Commons has maps like Image:Ivanovo-oblast-Ilyinskoe.png and I'm sure you could find some basc info on them ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the new maps to the list used by the city infobox (see Maykop for an example of the new one). Gotta do something about the length of those infoboxes now! The new maps lengthen them quite a bit, which isn't good.

As for the districts (raions), please don't do anything about them just yet. There is only a handful of district maps available anyway, and we don't yet have an infobox for rural localities (which is where the district locator maps are most useful), as we don't have many articles about those rural localities. If you think back, you'll remember that I am working on the database which covers Russian places, and that I am going to share it with Fritzpoll once it's done. Only after that it would make sense to work on the district stubs (which, ideally, should in the end look more like this one rather than this one). I don't mind the district stubs popping here and there occasionally when editors create them on the whim, but a bunch of low-quality substubs about each and every district would at this point be simply disruptive and not very helpful at all. All in the due time. Anyhoo, thanks for your help with the posmaps. Much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that it is the graphic on the Russian infobox and design that makes it about twice as long as a standard infobox rather than a map. I've added an infobox to Maykop. I would suggest that you adapt the infobox to standard. With it you are free to add anything else you want to it as there are countless empty paramters you can fill in with it. If you don't need certian aparamters then you can remove them and simplify it anyway. The same infobox can be used whether it is an oblast, raoin, urban community, or rural community all you have to do is adjust the settlement type and fill in the box accordingly. I doubt that you'll like it but that is what I would suggest ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do realize that quite well, but I still had to revert to the standard Russian city infobox. We had this discussion in the past, and despite the great number (too great of a number, actually) of options the Infobox Settlement offers, it is very poorly suited for describing Russian cities and I am yet to see it properly filled out when added by an editor uninvolved with WP:RUSSIA—I have to re-do the whole thing every single time! Your edit, for example, brands Adygea as "administrative division", which it is not, and loses the distinction between the administrative and municipal aspects of the city (there may be more issues I've missed, but these two are very serious blunders already). I imagine Infobox Settlement works marvelously for many cases, but Russia is not such a case—there are too many Russia-specific peculiarities one has to consider. The plan is to re-design the Russian city infobox to make it shorter, not to replace it with something that so far proved to be a horrible mess and never worked the way it was supposed to. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick facts Maykop МайкопМыекъуапэ/Myequape, Country ...

Maykop Майкоп Мыекъуапэ/Myequape
Urban okrug
Coat of arms
Country	Russia
Republic	Republic of Adygea
Founded	May 1857
Town status	1870
Government
• Head	Nikolay Pivovarov
• Legislature	Council of People's Deputies
• Self-governing	As of February 2008
Area
• Total	119 sq mi (308 km2)
Population  (2002)
• Total	156,931
• Population rank	110th
City day	First Saturday of June
Charter	Charter of Maykop
Postal code	385000
Dialling code	8772
Website	http://www.admins.maykop.ru

Close

The thing is you are completely free to add anything you want to the infobox. If it isn't an administative division then you change it to whatever it is such is the flexibility of it. The idea of it is that is can be designed for any country accordingly to the custom of the editor. If you look at the top it cleary shows it is an "Urban okrug". Many of the former Soviet states have peculiar parameters which need to be added. Ukraine is one in particular, and it works fine in article like Lviv in my view. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats where I disagree with you in that the infobox is suited for any country in the world, poorly suited to Russia is not a true evaluation of it, but if you want an infobox that takes up the length of the page then keep it. I'll respect your view on it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is an urban okrug does not deserve to be shown as prominently, because municipal divisions are based on administrative divisions, which are primary and take precedence (at least as far as the presentation in an infobox is concerned). The Charter, head, and the legislature are also municipal aspects of the city, but in this infobox they are all scattered across the template. Indeed, if one is not already aware that the Russian places have municipal and administrative aspects, they wouldn't even get an idea of that by looking at the Settlement infobox. Then, what does "self-governing as of 2008" mean? The date is supposed to show as of when the data in the "self-government" section are current, but the Infobox Settlement makes it look as if it's when the local self-government was established. I can go on and on and on. The bottom line is that while Infobox Settlement allows to somehow add pretty much any piece of information, it does not necessarily organizes that information in a logical and/or correct way. The analogy with Ukraine is not kosher either—Ukraine is neither a federation, nor does it make such a clearcut distinction between municipal and administrative aspects of its divisions as Russia does.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll respect your view on it, I see what you mean about the info being scattered in parts. I'm not particularly concerned now that you have adapted it to include the maps which was what I was looking. I really think you need to alter the graphic of it though to considerably reduce the length of it and if possible keep the headers by the side.

The only other problem is that I have no idea how the maps work with the Russian infoboxes. How would you add a map to Kaliningrad etc? Regards ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where I'll probably have to start. Still, the map itself is quite long as well, so the template itself isn't the only thing contributing to the length problem (and imagine the length of the template when district posmaps become available!).

As for making maps work, the Infobox Russian city has a "LocatorMap" parameter, which needs to be blank for the autogenerated map to show; otherwise the infobox is going to display whatever image is set by the LocatorMap parameter. With Kaliningrad, someone assigned a picture of Kaliningrad to that parameter, instead of the "Skyline" parameter, so the map was suppressed. I've just fixed that, but note how the dot does not show on the map, which means there is a problem with the posmap's parameters. Is this something you could look into?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see I have no idea what the "legend" element to the parameter means though!! I've tweaked the map of kaliningrad -looks correct now as the centre of the town isn't quite on the coast ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The legend parameter should only be used when one supplies a map that will override the autogenerated map; it's where the caption for that map is entered. When the map is autogenerated, the caption is autogenerated as well and whatever text is in the legend parameter, it is ignored. And thanks for cropping the map image—I was almost about to do it myself :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. I;ve added an infobox to Bagrationovsk, perhaps you could fill it in. I take it if the parameters aren't used then it doesn't hide it from the box so they have to be taken out. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The infobox does hide optional parameters (unless I'm confusing it with something else), but it always shows those fields which must be filled. That's done primarily to discourage mass addition of infoboxes for the sake of just having them sit there until some bothers to fill them in properly (for me, for example, it takes exactly as much time to add a filled-out infobox as it is to fill out an empty one, so there are no time savings there). Anyway, I'll add Bagrationovsk to my to-do list of articles with half-empty infoboxes and will take care of it eventually. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have some work to do adding El Salvadoran boxes right now. If there are no objections I think infoboxes should be added to all of the articles where maps exist unless the location map isn't avilabale yet or the article is a sub stub. I see adding the infobox and maps as a basic progression and is what I have been trying to do with most countries in the world, get some consistency and have articles in a standard format. If all of the russian places on here so far eventually have a decent infobox and content with locator maps then I'll rest. Any estimates to the number of settlements that actually exists in Russia. Go on astound me. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you won't be astounded, not after you learned that India has over 600K places all of which could use articles of their own :) In Russia, the total number of inhabited localities is slightly over 150K, and most of those are situated in Central Russia. The number used to be much higher in the past (according to some estimates, there used to be close to 400K, although I think it's a bit too bold an estimate), but many died out or were destroyed during World War II and never rebuilt or fell victim to urbanization.

As far as adding infoboxes goes, some of the WP:RUSSIA editors (me included) feel that the longer we can postpone their spread, the better. There are often interesting and informative images that could use a place on top of the article instead of being pushed all the way down because we need to make space for an (often dry and bland) infobox. Of course, everyone realizes that resistance is ultimately futile, so, first, we developed a city infobox that provides good approximation of coherent coverage (as opposed to, as showed above, overly generic approach the universal infobox takes); second, we do not systematically add that infobox to any articles (although we never remove properly filled out infoboxes either), and third, unless infoboxes such as the one you added to Bagrationovsk are filled out within reasonable amount of time (by the original poster or by one of the WP:RUSSIA members), they are simply removed as uninformative and unhelpful. So, what this boils down to, if you want to have decent infoboxes in articles about Russian cities, you need to be prepared not to just add mostly empty shells, but fill them out as well (and it takes anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes to research all of the information needed to fill all of the fields, providing you already know where to look and are prepared to hunt down needed pieces in Russian texts). Ultimately, this is all for quality sake: neither us nor the readers are going to be happy to see articles with infoboxes similar to Bagrationovsk's (as it stands now). Wikipedia has no deadline, remember? I could add infoboxes to all appropriate articles within a day, but it'll take months to make sure they contain useful information and no empty fields, all at the time when the priorities call elsewhere. It's just that we prefer to do things right the very first time—WP:RUSSIA already receives far less attention than it should, and the number of active editors is laughable if you consider the scope.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I note with interest that we don't yet have an article for Moshonki, Russia - 54°16'56N 35°37'32E. It's true, really! ;) @ Ezhiki. --Россавиа ^Диалог 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we don't have one on Bzdyuli (near Kirov) either :) If I had anything to write about them apart from the location and jurisdiction, I would most certainly created them if only for cheap laughs, but I am yet to sort this and this load of crap. That said, if you have interesting facts about those places, go wild :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a russian link for Moshonki thanks ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. Note, though, that it is not a town :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline no but if we want to progress people have to be prepared to do something. But if the main cities and towns in a country don't even have any indication of location, or basics on population, area etc then we begin to look even more like a joke and it is something I think is necessary. I disagree with you that it is all or nothing. Even basic location and data (if referenced) goes a long way from sub stubs we have on here. The representation of such a vast country such as Russia in the hands of only a few is indeed concerning and naturally you can't be expected to undertake the work alone. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for creating that one Blofeld. This is gonna be a hoot to see how the bot handles the interwiki links ;))) Ezhiki, perhaps you can expand this article instead? Perhaps we need a Russian slang wikipedia, so we can have such entries as Срига, Гондон, and my fave, Бахуй. In regards to Moshonki, I believe it was NTV which did a report on funny place names prob last year. Did you see it? And if so, know where we can view it? --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've prodded Moshonki, Moscow Oblast. The place undoubtedly exists, but it is just as undoubtedly not an inhabited locality (at least not officially), as neither the Moscow Oblast's registry nor OKATO have it listed. The Maplandia link provided in the article does not label this place either, so naturally these issues need to be taken care of if the stub is to be kept. As for Kozloduy, it is in Bulgaria, and I strictly limit myself to Russia with an occasional foray into the former Soviet republics, so I wouldn't have anything related to Bulgaria, sorry. As for Riga, London, and Baku, I'm not sure I'm following you. Is this something commonly used in speech? Is it encyclopedic? Pardon my ignorance, I haven't been to Russia for, oh, eight years now, so I am likely to be quite behind on some developments (nor do I have NTV or any kind of Russian TV available in my house).

In reply to Blofeld's comment that I can't be expected to undertake this task alone, I completely agree. However, bear in mind that since WP:RUSSIA has so few active contributors, it is especially important that those contributors are able to create quality content, because otherwise those few active editors will have their hands full with clean-up tasks, and then the project will definitely turn into a joke. Consider even your today's contributions. I am extremely glad that you are willing to help and very much appreciate what you've done, but did you notice that I had to edit every single contribution you've made? This is because they were not just slightly off, there were gross factual errors or presentation inconsistencies. It is not a big deal when it happens occasionally, but if you are, say, to start creating substubs such as Moshonki or add mostly empty infoboxes on a mass scale, you are just going to create a cleanup backlog for me and those other few active participants, screwing the workflow and impeding the project's progress. Like I said before, we can add the infoboxes in one or two days, but that would basically mean adding to the backlog with our own hands. And the backlog is such a thing that tends to build-up nicely on its own; if there is one thing where help is not needed, this is it :) I am by no means trying to turn you away, I am merely trying to point out that the project needs help in areas outside those you are trying to focus on. Consider, for example, that once Fritzbot starts processing the database I am working on, it would be possible to automate creation of, among other things, articles about raions and that such articles will have all of the vital stats they need. Why waste time on creating them manually now, especially when it means that we'll have to clean them up later? Same goes for infoboxes as well. I hope you understand the point I am trying to make. No hard feelings, and always glad to see you around!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have sorted out the problems with Tver Oblast settlements? Navbox needed a capitalised N. In regards to the NTV news-spot, I found it here (yes, Moshonki is the first one featured). Funnily enough, there is a Popki already in Poland. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing isn't it how a certain crisis with Georgia prompts 100s of editors to edit the same article. If we could somehow disperse these people to improve the other article?? I was wondering if you try to expand Tynda a bit. I;m sure it has a fascinating history or something worthy of note in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or a modern Russian encyclopedia or book. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but what you have described yourself having to do today is what I spend most of my time on here doing. (and with a far greater workload!!). Cleaning up after others or trying to build sub stubs into half decent articles. I would rather not bother working on something that isn't a progression and I of course agree that its best to do it properly. I only stubbed that article earlier in the belief it was a major city that was missing that Russavia implied. I expected it to be expanded straight away. However it was just a village and clearly not worth starting. If it was just a village why the note of surprise "note with interest that we don't yet have an article for Moshonki, Russia It's true, really!". Can you see how I might have got the impression I was starting a major city rather than a rural settlement? Why do you think I'd bother creating a load of sub stubs of making gross errors when I am fully aware of what your views are towards Russian progression on here? If you thought my intention was to do so or to add empty Russian infoboxes to all of the articles then you are mistaken my friend. Rather I am trying to assert that it is important that existing articles have some form of location map and basic details above what they have at present and kinding of hoping there is a project drive to do so, to ensure most articles have some kind of referenced basic information. I think you are aware of this, but given the worryingly few editors actively working on the Russian project I can see how the prospect of having a heavy burden to fill in everything or correct a lot of information which is misleading or complete rubbish almost single handedly might be a daunting one. Yes I also hope the language barriers break down which they will eventually and in a few years we will have reliable sources for such places and begin to move twoards the potential this site has for everywhere. However unique Russia is 3/4 of the world is a problem developing on here because of this access ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to blame your for anything you did today! I merely prompted you that doing such edits on a large scale would be more disruptive than helpful, but I did not (or at least tried not to) imply that I think it was going to be your intent.

Russavia made his "it's true, really" comment because "Moshonki", in Russian, means scrotums (although the real etymology is, of course, different), so for him and for me it was just an extremely funny name for a place. Since neither of us filled you in on the joke, it is only natural that you assumed it was some important place and went on with creating a stub. It is my full intent to try to find something to add to this stub since it now exists, although I can't guarantee success. Again, I am truly sorry if any of my comments sounded as accusations—not my intent at all. I am just so used to explain the same things to drive-by well-meaning editors over and over again that I can sometimes get too carried away in my passion about the subject. You are welcome on my talk page any day for any reason, have no doubt about that :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Haaaa!! Ah just a minute I have my Moshonki to scratch. Thats a good one!! But a prime example of the language barrier and how things can be misinterpreted or information incorrectly disposed. I know you meant good faith and are thankful of my maps at least but the cultural and political differences between Russia and my own country are to great to think about developing it. If I understood Russian I'm sure I could be a useful asset to the project. As it stands I can only hope you are cloned a thousand times and a country as vast as Russia can get some sort of active following on here, despite the 100 or so names which misleadingly seem to be all active. I would suggest that WP:Russia does a membership census call like we did at WP:Films a while back to root out those who aren't active and those who are. I bet if your project had 100 consistently active Russian and English fluent editors the task I;ve been talking about could be done in very quickly and efficiently. All the best ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wish sometimes I could clone myself, so the clone could do all the boring stuff in life, such as work and the dishes, and I would have free up time for travel and Wikipedia :) I'm sure same goes for you, too. You got me quite interested in the Census idea, though—did WP:Films just poll of the members one by one, or was there some neater way to get rid of those who joined the project and forgot about it the next day?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Had to uncomment the image above—it's funny, but not something I'd like to have on screen when my employer comes into my office :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of wondering how you are on wikipedia at work!! Yes WP:Films sent out automated notices to all of its "members". I believe they were given a week or two and asked to register their name on a page if they were still active. Naturally those editors who put their name down for wikiprojects but only edit a few times a year were not here to read the notice so therefore disregarded as an active contributor. Excpetions of course exist for those on holiday and then return and find they missed it but it is an excellent way of keeping the group to those who actually function within in, not just those who put their name down because they like the topic that the project deals with but do little or nothing to work with it ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to do this I think, and perhaps try and introduce collaborations and the like. Although having 2 projects doesn't help the cause of getting editors all on the same page. How successful would we be in trying to recruit editors from the Russian WP do you think? --Россавиа ^Диалог 22:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of wondering how you are on wikipedia at work. Just lucky to have an employer who cares about the results of my work and not about how I spend every second of my work time. As for Census, I, too, think it's a great idea. Don't know if we can recruit editors from ru_wiki, though, as not too many folks there speak English well enough and those who do are either already here or refuse to participate in en_wiki in principle.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in

1.) Ping here, old business...

2.) On your census issue above, a number of projects I've been associated with (One did this recently on my talk, if you look) periodically "restart" by Clearing the membership list to inactive and "polling" the old list to resign up with some boilerplate. I've experienced such from various Milt-hist task forces, Novels, naval groups and a few more including the WP:AMA group. The "better" projects, seem to have a strong dedicated coordinator that expends some time and thought putting out a newsletter. Hope that helps // FrankB 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Replied there.
2. A "dedicated coordinator" is one thing WP:RUSSIA does not have, that's for sure. I like your idea about purging the list by moving it elsewhere and starting it a-fresh. There are so many folks who signed up but never did much for the project, that it is probably a far better idea than polling everyone individually asking to confirm their status. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, for starters, but would advise taking the time expended on the courtesy as Lady Aleena did on my talk. Do it when the brain has shut down late night pre-beddy-bye using AWB... it can't take that damn long! Alternatively, advertise various places with notices, but out of fairness... I'd do both. Call for a co-ordinator election on the Pump, perhaps should get some notice. I gotta get back to RL... been a busy week! // 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing isn't it how a certain crisis with Georgia prompts 100s of editors to edit the same article. If we could somehow disperse these people to improve the other articles?? I was wondering if you try to expand Tynda a bit. I;m sure it has a fascinating history or something worthy of note in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia or a modern Russian encyclopedia or book. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, one quality the Great Soviet Encyclopedia lacks is "fascinating"—it's dry as a bone and ideologically skewed. On Tynda, it has exactly four lines of text :) I'll see what I can do about it anyway. Any reason for your interest in this particular article?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats better thanks. It appeared on the Long Way Round, this is why I wanted to see a longer article! ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to go to the moon? Mickman1234 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Spasibo, Ezhiki!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Skipp (talk • contribs)

No problem. You could just easily do it yourself, you know :) Assessments exist simply to provide a rough idea of the project priorities, so it is no big deal even if you mis-assess something by a level. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I recived your name after asking about Russian editors.

I hope you know about this list. If you can, please start helping in making it shorter (no - don't delete topics from the list. I mean creat articles. You can also make it bigger by adding topics).

Have a good day! Kostan1 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kostan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for bringing some semblance of order to the WP:RUSSIA's process of requesting articles; it was sorely needed. I do not, however, see anything on what I could easily write an article myself; all of the topics listed so far, unfortunately, lie beyond the scope of my interests and expertise. That does not mean I am not going to watch this page for future developments, though! I've also took the liberty to add a link to this page to the header of Portal:Russia/New article announcements, so it would (hopefully) get more attention, although in my experience the participants of WP:RUSSIA all prefer doing their own things and are very hard to coordinate or be rallied for anything.

Anyway, welcome aboard (again), and don't hesitate to contact me if you feel there is anything I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know about this new articles page! Kostan1 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Could you help me with User talk:Koavf#Pagemove? Apparently I fail to persuade him. Colchicum (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you folks finally settled on "Soviet–German relations before 1941", correct? In my opinion, that's an appropriate choice of a title. Please let me know if you continue to have disagreements and could use my help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's a sentence in the Dagestan article that says, "90.7% percent of Dagestan's population is Muslim, with Christians accounting for much of the remaining 9.3%.[citation needed]" Can you verify whether it is true or not? A citation would help. Thx. Khoikhoi 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of an appropriate source off the top of my head, but a quick search produced this useful article, which states that Christians comprised 7.2% of the population in 1998 and that Islam is the dominant religion in the republic. I'll keep looking, but gotta run now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Please let me know what you come up with. Maybe it's in the census data. Khoikhoi 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not in the census data, as Russian Census questions did not include questions about religion. The census data are occasionally used to estimate the confessional composition based on ethnicities, but such an approach is, of course, only good for very rough estimates, and I am wondering if the 90.7% figure is one of such rough estimates. Anyway, I'll keep looking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you translate this from Russian. The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I can, but it's all unsourced, and I am avoiding adding unsourced stuff in bulk these days. If you still want it, though, I'll try to get to it in the next few weeks or so. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

You are correct, this is the problem. I works fine in Safari but I normally use Firefox (I currently have version 3.0.1; Mac OS X v10.5). Here is a screenshot of what the infobox looks like to me in the Dagestan page (21:03, 13 August 2008). Khoikhoi 03:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang, MacOS is one environment I don't have access to. Thanks anyway; at least now I know where the problem is. Would you mind if I bug you occasionally to take a look at some test infobox in the future? I do intend to fix this bug.

Regarding your other question (citing Dagestan's confessional composition percentages), I've so far been unsuccessful. There are plenty of references citing Islam as the dominant religion of the republic, and a few that put number of Christians in the 5-10% range, but while all this seems to be more or less in line with the percentages cited in the article, I am not finding any specific figures. Perhaps the sentence can be reworded (as per available refs) until the reference used for the cited numbers surfaces?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Feel free to email me if necessary as well. And I agree with you regarding the references, we can re-word it with the refs we have until something else comes up. In fact, it is up to the person who added the figures in the first place to provide a source. Khoikhoi 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll re-word the sentence, unless you have any English-language sources you can use for this purpose (mine are all in Russian). Also, feel free to delete the screenshot above if you have no other use for it—I saved a copy locally in case I need to refer to it again. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks again. BTW, I actually have two more questions: the title of Prigorodny District, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania is quite long. Do most articles about Russian districts include the full name of these republics in the title? It might be better to rename it Prigorodny District, North Ossetia-Alania. Also, I noticed that Roki Tunnel says "also Roksky Tunnel". Is this the Russian or Ossetian transliteration? I think we should have the Ossetian name first, then Georgian, then Russian. What do you think? Khoikhoi 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The names of districts/inhabited localities include the full name of the federal subject when the disambiguation is required. That was done primarily for consistency (short names such as "Komi" and "Karelia", for example, are ambiguous without the "Republic" specifier), and the whole disambiguation scheme of the Russian places currently relies on that convention (it is hard to keep track of stuff as is; would you also want to have to remember when to use "republic" and when not to?). My recommendation in case with Prigorodny District would be to take heart in the fact that some other titles are even longer and leave it at its current title :)

As for the "Roksky Tunnel", it is a Russian transliteration, but since I don't know Ossetian, I cannot discard a possibility that it may also be Ossetian. On the listing order, I have no opinion. For places in Russia, we normally list Russian first, then the rest of the official languages, then other languages of some special importance. By that analogy, in case with the tunnel I would put Georgian first, then Ossetian, then Russian, but, of course, considering the recent events let's just say I'm glad I don't have to decide on the order of anything in this particular case :), but I trust Russian should be last in the list regardless of the order of Georgian/Ossetian. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If I had the time to rename all the pages, I would actually recommend that we use the full name to avoid ambiguity only when there is ambiguity. Karelia is a good example. However, in instances such as "North Osetia-Alania", there are no other regions with this name. Same goes for most Russian republics. That's why I think that most of them could just use the common name, with the exception of the ambiguous ones. However, it doens't matter either way. As for the tunnel, I guess the order isn't really important. I've asked Taamu if he knows the Ossetian name. Yeah, there were even unconfirmed reports that the tunnel was destroyed! I don't know whether it's true or not. Cheers, Khoikhoi 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force has been started. You may which to join or link it somehow with WikiProject Russia. If you know anybody interested potentially, please let them know. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the announcement on the Russian noticeboard. I wish I had time for that in addition to other stuff I do! Anyway, thanks for the personal notice :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Привет!!! Я тут написал статью про Шугурово, но как выяснилось, это не пгт более. Дарвинек отредактировал статью, слегка испортив )) Где бы постмотреть, до какгого года оно было пгт, и вообще где такая информация хранится?--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Привет! Такие вещи лучше всего искать в законодательстве (если, как в данном случае, изменение произошло относительно недавно) или в старых справочниках по административно-территориальному делению (если изменение произошло до 1990-х гг.). Я добавил дату и ссылку на соответствующее постановление. Если не секрет, откуда ты брал остальную информацию? Можешь тоже добавить источник и удалить {{refimprove}}?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Chrisportelli from mt.wiki. Can you please translate a small paragraph of the local embassy in Russian. Here is the text: "Welcome to the embassy of the Maltese Wikipedia! If you have any announcements or questions regarding international issues or the Maltese Wikipedia, you are invited to post them here or to the talk page for this article." Thanks ;) Chrisportelli (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As requested:

"Добро пожаловать в посольство мальтийской Википедии! Вопросы и объявления по международной тематике, связанные с мальтийской Википедией, можно обсудить здесь или на странице обсуждения."

If you need to link to the talk page from this paragraph, link the "странице обсуждения" portion (last two words). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your translation ;) Chrisportelli (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For the heads up - I think the whole tagging issue for those who dont is simply not understanding WP Assessment/ management issues - I think the discussion linked to is really too dispersed to bring up the issue of why i think tagging is so important (imho) - there would be serious concern if anyone tried the argument against tagging for any odd reason - at that point i think it would be time to point out why and how it is important. Hey thanks again SatuSuro 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again. By any chance did Kamchatka Krai finally adopted an offical flag? I'm asking because it looks as if a new image slighlty different from the previous has been uploaded. See for yourself:

• 
  New Image
• 
  Old Image

The image file says that a Хинт is the author of the new image. Perhaps I should ask him instead? American Imperialist (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the new image is simply a slightly modified version of the old one (hopefully more accurate, although I am no expert on vexillology), but it is definitely not the new flag. The new flag is not available yet, and, as a matter of fact, the Government of Kamchatka Krai announced a CoA/Flag/Anthem contest only a couple weeks ago (on August 8). Contest entries are accepted from August 25 through December 15, and the preliminary selection process will take place from November 29 to December 14. The final selections will be made between December 22 and January 22, and the winner will be announced on January 23, 2009. Until then, any folks attempting to upload a "new" flag should be shot on sight :) In Хинт's defense, the name of the new image is not completely misleading, as Kamchatka Krai continues to officially use the flags of both Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous Okrug until the new flag is adopted. Same goes for the coats of arms. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi I've put this up for AFD. At present it is far from appropriate for wikipedia. However a google search indicates that is may have some significance in Russian financing. Could you look into it. If it is notable could you help sort it out? The Bald One ^{White cat} 09:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles having to do with Russian financing is one topic I specifically avoid editing. I do, however, agree that the article as it existed had to be deleted. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about that Norilsk tree thing -- I do want to get to the bottom of this =). It seems to me that the CNN claim, as stated, can be contradicted by procuring evidence of at least one living tree within 30 miles of the smelter. When I visited in August 2008 there a few pathetic but certainly living trees lining Lenin prospekt in the center of the city (which is a few miles away from the smelter). Also, there is a whole forest on the far bank of the Noril'skaya river, about 20km from the smelter (according to Google Earth -- btw you can actually see the trees =)). So, what should I look for? If I find a photo of Norilsk, with the trees, published by some newspaper, would that constitute reliable evidence? How about the same photo on the city/region/smelter's website? How about my own homepage? (I imagine not.) Also, if I do find a photo or some other evidence, do I just post a link on the discussion page and delete the CNN line? I'd appreciate your help. Klopod (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Klopod! Thanks for your inquiry. You are, of course, correct in that the CNN claim can be refuted (or at least counter-balancing opinion could be given), but Wikipedia policies allow only certain ways in which that can be done. Even if you (or me) go to the location and make sure that there are in fact trees growing in the area in question, your word (or mine) is not going to be sufficient for the article's purposes, because it cannot be verified. Pictures you take will not do it either, because while we do accept pictures for the purpose of illustrating the articles, they cannot be used for citations unless they came from a reliable source and can be cited as such. A link to a reliable source making a counter-statement is, of course, always acceptable (a local newspaper is quite fine, and so is any official website), and if such a source has pictures showing the trees growing there, that would be even better. Personal webpages (yours included) are not acceptable for this purpose, you are right about that. Standalone pictures (i.e., without accompanying article) would only be acceptable if they explicitly define the area in question and are published in what can be defined as a reliable source. Satellite pictures, such as those available on Google Earth (thanks for taking time to look them up, by the way!), are more complicated. While definitely "reliable" (as defined by WP:RS), Google Earth maps and satellite pictures are a primary source, so no matter how straightforward their interpretation seems to be, it would be an interpretation nevertheless, and thus would fall under Wikipedia's no original research policy (because we would not be using them purely descriptively, as WP:PSTS requires, but would use them to refute a cited statement).

All in all, what this boils down to is that we need a statement in a reliable source confirming the existence of the living trees in order to be able to provide some balance to the CNN's mistake (if that's what it is) or to remove it altogether (in which case a note can be made on the talk page, as you have suggested). Meanwhile, in absence of any other sources, I would recommend to add a note to the CNN statement with a link to the satellite picture in which the trees are visible, which is an easy temporary fix until good counter-balancing sources are found.

Hope this helps! Please don't hesitate to contact me again if you need anything else or if anything is still unclear. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Made a brief comment on the Norilsk page too, but the sat. image already in the article ought to serve Klopod's purpose, the interpretation there is being made by NASA, so should meet the applicable guidelines. My personal take is the CNN quote probably should've been that there are no trees within 30 miles downwind of the smelter, which appears to be the case. Kmusser (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That one should work (I was originally under the impression that google maps were used). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ezhiki, trust you to always butt in, or are you taking my "Stalk me" suggestion a little too seriously? ;) If you have those lists, that would be great, if it's easier for you to scan and email to me, that would be ok; I've just sent you an email so you have my email address. I will keep looking for that list I had, although it's looking bleak now; it was in Russian, and I can't find it in either en.net or RuNet. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not stalking you; I just had Pocopoco's page watchlisted for a reason I no longer remember and your post was the most interesting thing to pop up on my watchlist when I checked it :)

Scanning the pages is a possibility, but my copy of the book with the list in question is in a truly abysmal condition, and I'd rather not subject it to a flatbed scanner torture. Besides, I'm not sure the results are going to be very readable, so I'll just stick to typing. No big deal, really (unless you are going to ask for the whole book next, in which case I'm afraid I'll have to refuse :)) Anyway, I'll start the list here, and you are welcome to move it to wherever it is convenient to you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That'd be sweet, but only so long as its not too much trouble. And there is no rush, but it would be nice to have it by this time. Can I ask what book it is, perhaps if I search for it, I may be able to source a copy, if it has these details in it, it could be quite useful to have. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. The book is called "Грузинская ССР. Административно-территориальное деление на 1 января 1987 г.", изд. "Сабчота Сакартвело", Тбилиси, 1988. If you live in Russia, you probably have better chances of finding a paper copy, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't live in Russia, but here. Thanks for the title, I'll ask my guys over there to look for me, but it might be easier to wait for the updated edition entitled, "Российская Федерация. Административно-территориальное деление на 26 августа 2008 г.", изд. "Медвед!", Москва, 2008.; it will be completely up-to-date, with some entries being deleted no doubt. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not support aggression, either Russian or Georgian. Enjoy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I, yet one has to keep humour about them eh. That's an awesome list to work on, and it looks more comprehensive than the one I had, so thanks a lot for that, I'll move it over to my userspace, perhaps chuck on the Ossetia project subpages also for development. It's gonna be fun getting all of the geo co-ordinates for these. On a related note, is the South Ossetia that Russia has recognised correspond to the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast? ;) Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I know. The official Russian documents recognizing South Ossetia are pretty vague and certainly do not go into such uninteresting and unimportant details as borders :) You'd probably have to look at what South Ossetian powers-that-be produced on this subject and then compare their data with the old borders. Anyway, have fun with the list and let me know if there is anything else I can help with! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, remember this? It has been renamed again. Renamer is probably going over the Guantanamo articles. Odijev was impossible of course, so we now have Ruslan Anatolivitch OdiShev. Reason I think it was not thought through: Prolandnom was again quoted as birth place, and at the end a completely different (Arabic name) was used. I already warned the guy that his work is appreciated, but ... Since you did the earlier re-name, will you be so kind as to repeat that, or should we go for a "court case" on the grounds that there seems to be some controversy. I guess some people may think the guy should be called what he was called at Guantanamo, even though the administration there got everything wrong except his date of birth?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back again. Patronymics are only used in titles when there is an ambiguity (clearly none here), and the "Odishev" spelling corresponds neither to what default WP:RUS would produce nor to the spelling used in Guatanamo records. Choosing Odijev vs. Odizhev is, however, discussable and is up to whatever consensus is reached on the talk page (providing someone bothers to commence a discussion there), but considering the obscurity of this person the default romanization is probably preferrable. Oh, and I had a good laugh at "Prolandnom"—it took me a minute to figure out just what the hell that was supposed to mean. Looks like Guatanamo staff could use somewhat better interpreters, but that would probably improve their overall competence level to unacceptable heights :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete a good written text for a stub version? God of Sins (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article was in line with the Wikipedia's romanization of Russian guidelines, so it did not need to be renamed. Also, copy-paste moves are discouraged because they botch articles' histories, which should be consolidated in order to remain compliant with the GFDL requirements. Same goes for re-writing and expanding existing articles—if you want to expand one, please do so under its current title; do not simply create a fork version under an alternative title and then redirect old article to it. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you. God of Sins (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've just copyedited your expanded version somewhat; please let me know if you have any further questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Need you administrative help in deleting a copied image. As you will see on the Provinces of Italy page, User:Supparluca is causing trouble trying to replace an image I had with alternate naming (from commons) with one he copied from me and is trying to put in based on Italian language only. The image should be deleted (Image Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png) and Supparluca needs to be told to cease his actions.

Thank you! Rarelibra (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you've IfD'd this image, I cannot delete it until its five days are up (providing there's no opposition). As for the provinces of Italy, looks like a content dispute to me; and a dispute the contents of which I don't have a good grasp of. WP:ITALY is probably the best place to take this dispute to. I can, of course, try a hand at resolving this, but it would be difficult for me to do without understanding the subject thoroughly, and I'll probably just make a bad mess worse. Sorry for not being of much help there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо за подправку дизамбига. Но есть один комментарий. Купчино - это не совсем муниципальный район, это скорее исторический район, который включает несколько муниципальных округов, которые идут под номерами. Так что наверно нужно как-то изменить формулировку.  Gruznov  Talk  07:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Спасибо за комментарий, только я ведь и не писал, что это район (поскольку "municipal okrug"≠"municipal district")? В любом случае, слегка подправил. Так лучше?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Привет! Можешь инициаровать защиту статьи от правок анонимов? (Я никогда этого не делал и не знаю куда обращаться) Кто-то из татарских националов стирает узбекское написсание имени сабжа, хотя он вроде бы гражданин Узбекистана и как мне кажется, это написание должно присутсвовать на странице. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 08:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Защищать пока не буду (поскольку semi предназначен для временной защиты статей от вандализма с разных IP, а тут у вас просто спор по мелкому вопросу), но за развитием прослежу. Для гражданина Узбекистана, разумеется, имя на узбекском указано быть должно. Что касается спеллинга, то поскольку такой же спеллинг используется в узбекской вики, то твоя версия совершенно правильна. Статью, кстати, тоже, наверное, имеет смысл переименовать (в "Ruslan Chagayev")?

А запросить защиту можно на WP:RFP. Я не против, чтобы меня спрашивали напрямую, но если я в оффлайне, то через RFP может быть быстрее.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, any chance you can possible move protect Vladimir Putin. As you can see from the history, it is a target for vandals, and the name is stable hence it won't require a move in future; unless of course he has a sex change :D Cheers --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Welcome back, by the way :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. For that, you deserve a laugh for the morning. and . --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More like mid-afternoon on my end (not to mention that my employer is blocking youtube), but I'll take a look when I get back home. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are cordially invited to join WikiProject Russia! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Russia.

As you have shown an interest in Krasnensky District we thought you might like to take an interest in this WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Outreach, which I borrowed from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Outreach#Invite_editors_to_become_new_members. It could be a useful tool in helping to invigorate the project and get new blood for the project. Refer also to your email if you can. And feel free to simply reply here, I've got your talk page on watch so will catch any replies. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you fully protected Vladimir Putin due to move vandalism. However, could I ask you to change the edit-protection level back to "autoconfirmed"? I have no objection to the move-protection level being set to full, but I don't think the intention was to freeze the article completely, just stop it from being renamed. Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Aervanath! I actually wasn't the person who fully protected this article. It was already protected at the time I move-protected it, so I simply carried that protection over, assuming that it was done for a reason. Looking closer, the article indeed does not seem to need full edit protection, but by the time I am writing this the article has already been unprotected by another admin. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I misinterpreted the protection log, which is why I thought it was you. You learn something new every day, I guess. Thanks for getting back to me so promptly!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks ;) Quadro86 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting a message on my talk page. Unfortunately I was (and still am) quite busy, therefore I was not active on WP for several months. I saw your message just now, and I see that the discussion for RfD is over and it was decided to keep.

I believe you have seriously misunderstood my opinion, therefore in hope of clarifying my view to you, I would like to add a few observations:

1) You write: "While cases where the community is tolerant to this type of content are not uncommon, this infobox is one that is clearly divisive and provocative." Obviously, my infobox states a personal view on a political question, but I strongly disagree that it is divisive and provocative in a negative way. The reason I made it is to be provocative in a positive way: I would like to learn more about other people's opinions on the subject.

2) Supporting independence of Chechnya is an intellectual choice. It is not support for any violent action (even if it was justified). Desire of a people to seek independence is not terrorism. Personally, I admire Djokhar Dudayev, for his verticality, but dispise people like Shamil Basayev, for his lack of respect for other people's life. Supporting independence of Chechnya is not the same as recognizing it: I do not recognize it as a separate country. I only wish it would be independent some day. It is like supporting independence of Taiwan, Kosovo, or Tibet. For your information, I strongly oppose the independence of Kosovo. Only Serbia could grant Kosovo independence (even if it were 200% justifiable, Serbia must do it, not someone else), just as I hope that Russia, not someone else, recognizes independence of Chechnya.

3) If supporting independence of Chechnya is "divisive and provocative", how is supporting independence of Transnistria, Abhazia, South Ossetia? Why the double standard? Noone should forbid a WP use to say "I hope Transnistira/Abhazia/S Ossetia be independent one day". On the same tokken, noone should promote on WP the view that T/A/SO would be independent. They are nothing but separatist movements. Just like Chechnya. A person can like/dislike some/other of them, but a logical person understand that none IS independent.

4) One person wrote in the RfD comments: "Intolerance breeds intolerance" to say that your arguments in RfD are not entirely without expressing a personal political view. I hope that we can have divergent opinions and learn to learn from each other. Having an opinion does not mean intolerance for those with opposite one. This is just one of a 1000 opinions I have. Are you sure you would disagree with my view on the other 999? I bet we have the same POV on at least 900. :) Dc76\^talk 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dc! Thanks much for an elaborate and detailed comment; I sincerely appreciate you taking time to make it. I do, however, believe that you, as well as many of the folks who voted to support the userbox in question, misunderstood the purpose of my nomination, and I blame only myself, for I was unable to communicate my intent more clearly. At no point of time was I trying to deprive anyone from their right to hold opinions on various matters. I myself am human, I hold opinions on many different things, and some of those opinions are strong to the point where I avoid editing articles on that topic because I know there is no way in hell I'll be able to stay neutral. So, my only concern about this infobox (and by "only" I mean only) was that it goes against WP:USERPAGE, which, as you undoubtedly know, is a guideline dealing with the content the editors can and cannot have on their userpages. My line of thinking is that if the community bothered to develop a guideline such as that, it is the responsibility of the community members to either uphold that guideline or, if it no longer has consensus, to update it so it does not contradict the existing practices. Since I happen to agree with the guideline's intents and purposes, I went ahead with taking a random non-compliant userbox and nominating it for deletion. This one happened to be the userbox supporting the independence of Chechnya. If it were a box supporting the independence of Transnistria, Kosovo, Taiwan, or Tibet, I have no doubts I would now be writing this same response to some other editor who may have submitted a comment not dissimilar from your own comment above.

The bottom line is that we should never forget why we are here and what we are supposed to be doing. This is an encyclopedia, and we are the writers of encyclopedic content. Sure, our personal feelings and opinions affect everything we write, but that should not prevent us from following the core principle of the project—neutral point of view. If one is unable to write in a neutral manner on a given topic, then one should find another topic where neutrality is easier to follow. If one is unwilling to write in a neutral manner, such person would be much better off leaving this project for some other worthy endeavor; one where neutrality is optional. Same principles should guide the communications between the editors—I know full well you have your opinions, and you know full well I have mine, and we know full weel everyone has their own, but in the end it should have no effect whatsoever on our work. The only thing that matters is whether we are able to control our POVs well enough for the content we produce to be written in a neutral manner. There most certainly is no need whatsoever to be flashing your opinions in front of other people or, worse yet, advertise a certain point of view in hopes of swaying other peoples' opinions. For that they invented bumper stickers, and in my experience one is yet to convince another person of anything using only that tool. And if you absolutely need to know what my opinion on such or such topic is, just ask me. In fact, that is your only option, because I am most certainly not going to plaster userboxes all over my userpage advertising my opinions about which no one gives a damn anyway but which could alienate folks holding opposite views, folks who may otherwise have entered a productive collaboration with me.

Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ëzhiki! Thank you very much for your answer. It has been long time since I have seen so well-written text. It proves that indeed it was 99% misunderstanding. And I am to be blamed of that no less than you. For my part, if I may, I would like to withdraw my vague suggestion in 4) above that you might be "intolerant". I would like this to stay on the record: your answer absolutely convinced me that you are tolerant with people you disagree. In fact, I no longer see any sense for my observations 2, 3), and 4). Please, ignore them.

Perhaps we can solve the remaining 1%, as well. You say: "So, my only concern about this infobox (and by "only" I mean only) was that it goes against WP:USERPAGE, which, as you undoubtedly know, is a guideline dealing with the content the editors can and cannot have on their userpages.". I created the userbox by analogy, b/c I saw dosens of similar userboxes. If there is a ruling, or even a recommendation addressed to the entire community to remove such userboxes, I will definitevely remove it. I don't think it is right to remove only mine and to let there be all others. But because you asked so nicely and so civilizedly, you convinced my halfway.

So I suggest, why don't we two rally 8-10 more people and propose WP to adopt the following recommendation to its users (feel free to edit it, in fact i hope you will edit it since i only wrote roughly):

If you are a user that has been around for more than a 1-2 months, please consider removing from your userpage infoboxes that suggest your support for a secessionist movement, even if democratic or by democratic means, a pro-fascist or a pro-communist ideology, or an organization involved in terrorism, even in the mildest form, such as putting a bomb in an empty premises to prove a point.

This recommendation aims to remove one instance of disputes about settling a precise line of division between allowed and non-allowed content in userspaces. Although you are not required to follow this recommendation, if you do follow, you will be part of a large group of people (hopefully one day, the entire WP) that renounced to (posting) similar content on their userpage for the sake of building a better environment. By renouncing to posting such infoboxes you in no way renounce to holding an opinion.

what do you think about it? in case this recommendation is issued, i intend to remove my infobox even if noone else follows suit. Cheers, Dc76\^talk 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, I assume you mean point 8 of what not to have on one userpage (in WP:USERPAGE). I don't think that my infobox falls in that category. However, you asked nicely that I remove it. To me your honest and open request values more than an interpretable policy guideline. So, most likely you won't be able to convince me that having my infobox is wrong, but you can convince me to simple remove it. Dc76\^talk 15:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dc, thank you again for your thoughts. To address your remaining concerns, the nomination was not addressed to remove only one userbox (namely yours); it was a nomination of what was supposed to be a series of nominations of similar userboxes (this point was clarified in small font, so it was easy to miss). However, in my unbridled optimism towards what I felt was a sure-hit outcome, I did not think of a backup plan, so continuing to nominate similar userboxes in pretty much pointless now. There should be another way, and your suggestion seems to be a good alternative (more on that below).

I should also note that item 8 of WP:USERPAGE was not the only reason behind the nomination. I feel that such userboxes also fall under the definitions of "personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" and "non-encyclopedic related material". I see how the "I support independence of Chechnya" statement being "polemical" can be seen as a subject of interpretation and debate, but I don't see how potential independence of Chechnya can ever amount to anything more than a personal opinion unrelated to Wikipedia. Even if you are a scholar working on a publication researching the potential ways for Chechnya to become independent, it is still not "related to Wikipedia" (because, mainly, of the original research and, to a lesser degree, of the conflict of interest concerns), and if you are not such a scholar, then, well, it is just your personal opinion which does not matter as far as the goals of improving the encyclopedia go.

I understand full well what you mean when you say that you had created the userbox "by analogy"—I myself used to have a fairly polemic userbox "by analogy" with other users who had similar userboxes displayed. With so many bad examples to follow, it may be hard to resist to add a userbox yourself, especially when nothing seems to be wrong with such practices on the surface. The key words here, however, are "on the surface"—I removed my userbox soon after I realized that to the editors holding opposing views such userboxes are, at best, a mild irritation, and at worst a bone of contention and a reason to justify conflicts (sometimes on matters completely unrelated to userbox statements). The positive side of such userboxes? Can't think of any.

You also say that you will remove the Chechen independence box from your userpage if I ask you nicely. I most certainly can do that, but I don't think that is going to be fair either to you or to other editors who will not have their userboxes removed. After all, if, as you say, I was able to half-convince you that controversial userboxes are bad for the project (and, judging by how you worded the rough draft of the proposed recommendation, you may have been even more than half-convinced), you should have no qualms about removing the userbox on your own. If you agree with my arguments as they are, why do you need me to personally ask you? Also, if I do ask you, in order to remain fair I will probably have to ask every other editor who has similar materials displayed to do the same, and, as much as I'd love to see Wikipedia rid of the bumper-sticker-mania, there are plenty of other things I'd rather be doing with my time. I hope you understand.

This, however, brings me to your recommendation suggestion. I think it is a great idea, and I sincerely regret it did not occur to me instead of the serial nomination idea that I started with the userbox is your userspace (but, again, see my note on optimism above). While I think the current wording of WP:USERPAGE is superior to such recommendation, I also realize that WP:USERPAGE is a guideline which, possibly, is being the least complied with, and the reality shows the practices which are a complete opposite. Still, there are good places for that recommendation to go to—Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics comes to mind right away, but there is likely to be a cache of similar destinations which could benefit from having this recommendation prominently displayed. I'll probably just be bold and add this recommendation to /Politics, and if there are any problems, I will continue the discussion there.

Once again, thank you for your time and comments. I welcome your further thoughts on this situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Come one, I did not mean to suggest you to ask me. You asked indirectly when you wrote your very first comment yesterday. That is enough, you need ask no more. Come on, I'd rather oppose resistance when threatened with a punch on an issue that I have no strong opinion, but would renounce in face of an indirect request even when have strong opinion, if the latter is in good faith, for good purposes and does not force me to change my opinion per se. Which are obviously satisfied. So, as much as it concerns me, here we are.

I agree, a recommendation is not a standard way to deal with a large and heterogeneous community, enforcement is much better. But given the fact that there are disputes about where the border lies, and that people mostly learn by example than by reading instructions, also given the fact that perhaps many other people would do like I did if it's not coercive, maybe it's worth following through. Again, the suggestion is very rough, the text is very approximate. If you know how to adapt it better, please do. Just let me know when you reach something, and I'll bring 3-5 more people to support your initiative(s). If you can, pls provide a direct link that I can spread around, since few people have patience to read more than 2-3 lines.

I do exact sciences, so no, I'm not a "scholar in Chechnya related issues". :) And I never edited a Chechnya-related WP article. Sorry, now I have to go for today. Nice talking to you. See you around these days. Best, Dc76\^talk 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you can obviously tell that I didn't get more than three hours of sleep last night, because I was sure you wrote "if you asked nicely" while in fact there was no "if" present in the sentence you wrote! I then proceded with writing a lengthy diatribe-like response. Well, duh :( In any case, thanks for the clarification. Also, of course, thank you for this—I think you've just made Wikipedia a tiny bit friendlier place.

I will work on wording the recommendation next week, and will definitely let you know when I'm done. It was nice talking to you too, and I'm sure we'll bump into each other again; hopefully in regards to a less contentious issue. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry you spent too much time last night with it. I did not know that if I express myself not in 100% correct English, I'd cause you not having enough time to sleep. Surely, I would have answered differently. But look on the bright side: your answer earned you a friend. I'm sure I can do something in the future to help you compensate for the time you spent. Don't hesitate to ask, i'll expect nothing in return. Dc76\^talk 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it may have taken me over two hours to write a response to you, but it was definitely not the reason why I got so little sleep last night :) Nor did I have any problems with your English or reasoning flow. In any case, I'll certainly keep you in mind in case I have a question that lies in your area of expertise. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, I have nominated Putinisms for AfD on the basis of exactly what I state in the nomination. User:Mariah-Yulia posted her keep opinion, which I have responded to. As I have mentioned there, and elsewhere, the nationalistic bullshit and nuttery has to stop in this area of WP, and level-headedness needs to prevail; hence why I have even stated to her that perhaps we should collaborate on articles in future. So you can imagine my disdain when I see this. It is totally against WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to be calling people "Moskal" (which is hidden by spelling it backwards as Laksom). As you likely know, this is a derogatory term for Russians as used by Ukrainians and Poles. Do we allow this on WP? I don't believe we stand for this at all. I was banned for 2 weeks, as you may have seen, on an accusation of alluding to the ethnicity of an editor; the use of such a derogatory term (I believe it was meant in a derogatory way due to the intentionally spelling it backwards) is above and beyond that in so many ways. Where should I be taking this? Advice appreciated. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but maybe there is a midway to avoid too much conflict. How about renaming the article and spliting it into 2 artilces: "Quotes by Putin" and "Putin in humour and fiction." Obviously, one would add not only negative quotes, humor and fiction, but also positive one. I do not intend to work on such articles, but I thought it's worth suggesting a way out. If you don't like it, just ignore my suggestion. No sweat.:Dc76\^talk 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article, but use of ethnic slurs by an editor towards myself; a slur which is enough more laughable due that not even being my ethnicity, nor nationality. But the fact that a hateful ethnic slur is being tossed around, that needs to be dealt with.--Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I only refered to the article (even that I only read by diagonal). Obviously I do not accept using slurs. Separate the two issues, and you will have more success following through. Dc76\^talk 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You were really offended by that? I mean, I understand this was not a nice thing to say (and, prior to seeing this remark, I was of much higher opinion of Mariah-Yulia, although I don't believe I ever had a chance to communicate with her directly, so I may easily have been wrong), and certainly against the civility guidelines, but... isn't it too minor a thing to worry about?

If you really want to pursue this further, my recommendation would be to drop an as neutrally-worded note as possible on Mariah-Yulia's page saying that you do not appreciate her use of ethnic slurs. If she apologizes, fine—I think this is indeed too minor a thing to develop a spectacular drama around. If she does not apologize, well, at least you'll know where she stands. You'll also be able to move this to dispute resolution (starting with WP:WQA) if your heart so desires.

If I were you though, I'd simply laugh this off. Calling, we kid you not, an Australian guy "laksom"??!! C'mon, of the two of us, aren't you supposed to be the one with a sense of humor? I find the outcome simply hilarious. On the other hand, I've never been blocked, justly or unjustly, so I can't really predict how I'd feel in your shoes, but I doubt I'd want to make any fuss out of it unless it becomes an unhealthy pattern. Besides, if ethnic slurs is the best the opposing party can come up with, it normally means you are in the right. I don't feel comfortable submitting my vote to this AfD now that you asked my opinion on some of its developments, but if I were to stumble upon that nomination independently, I'd most like vote to support deletion because it's been a while since I've seen so much unencyclopedic crap packed up under an ill-suited title and presented as an "article".

Sorry if what I said was not exactly what you expected to hear, but that's my sincere take on this situation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply re Orenburg. One must wonder why the Soviet regime didn't Russify the name. Sca (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On that point, unfortunately, I cannot offer anything beyond banal speculation. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! On Sep. 27 Domino theory (talk · contribs) without any discussion split Governorate of Vyborg (1812-1917) from Viipuri Province (1917-1940). IMHO they are the same entity (and no sources have been provided to show that they are not). Contrary to him, the province wasn't established from the Governorate of Vyborg of the Grand Duchy of Finland, following the declaration of independence on December 6, 1917. Nothing happened to the province in 1917, even the delimitation of electoral districts didn't change. Finnish Wikipedia has one article for this, and for a good reason. May I ask your opinion about this? (please reply here rather than on my talkpage) Colchicum (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, 1917 is not a completely arbitrary date—even though nothing may have happened to the province in 1917, Finland itself was declared independent from Russia. In the long run this split probably makes sense as it is a natural point to divide one article in two when one becomes too long. Both articles are not too long now, but they certainly not too short and have room to grow. In my opinion, whether at this point of time we have one article or two is simply a matter of personal preference. That said, the sentence about the province being "established from Vyborg Governorate" definitely needs changing.

All in all, I don't see this case much different from, say, the case with Saint Petersburg Governorate, which, if you follow a certain logic, should be named Leningrad Governorate (its most recent name). Instead of doing that, however, we can easily create separate articles on Petrograd Governorate and Leningrad Governorate, which would only deal with the appropriate periods. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was the same province with the same name (unlike the said governorate), borders (unlike the said governorate again) and other things, so the issue is whether the article is large enough to be split, whether there is a consensus to do so, and if so, what would be the natural periodization compliant with WP:OR. It is not especially large as of now and 1917 is not a natural point. Finland, strictly speaking, has never been part of Russia, before 1917 it was part of the Russian Empire ruled by the same monarch, but separate in almost every other respect. Some essential background is either lost or has to be repeated if the article is split, and it is much more difficult to maintain two different articles. And there is clearly no consensus for the split. By the way, this is not the only problematic split, see Talk:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Colchicum (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, 1917 is a more natural point, than, say, 1907 :) But you are right when saying that it is mostly a question of whether there is a consensus that the article was large enough to warrant splitting. You asked my opinion, and it happened to be "I don't care", because I just don't see any huge problems with this split ("harder to maintain" shouldn't be an issue if one strictly sticks to the date ranges which are supposed to be covered by the two separate articles and provides links back and forth when background details are needed, which is a one-time task). If editors who are actually going to work on this article decide that they want all information in one place, I'm cool with that. If more editors say they want two separate articles, I don't have a problem with that either. After all, we are splitting articles left and right anyway, so it is only the matter of what's going to be more convenient. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear from me, but that's my honest opinion for this particular case. I'll take a look at the talk page you linked to and will comment here if, after perusing it, I have anything more to add. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ezhiki,

Your comment: If the redirect is invalid, please get rid of it using proper venues; don't just leave a blank page hanging there!

My reply: As mentioned by Nicolas Guérin this redirection to Crocus vernus is incorrect in two ways. See copy of his message on my page on Commons:

Encore un grand merci pour ton expertise. Pourquoi Crocus aureus est-il catégorisé dans Crocus flavus? C'est bizarre sur la wikipedia anglophone, Crocus aureus est une redirection qui pointe vers Crocus vernus, les deux sont-ils synonymes? Amicalement. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 18:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My reply to Nicolas: Crocus flavus ' (Syn. C. aureus) et d'autres espèces à floraison printanière ont été tous nommés par différents auteurs Crocus vernus, cf. notamment Flora Europaea - Crocus vernus. C'est ainsi que les crocus de Hollande à grandes fleurs sont considérés comme des cultivars de Crocus vernus s.l.. Ce sont en fait des cultivars de Crocus vernus et de Crocus flavus. J'ai corrigé le tir sur nl:Bonte krokus. Je n'ai pas vérifié la en:Crocus vernus. Amicalement, --Réginald (To reply) 13:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Consequently I have added at the bottom of the page Crocus vernus: Several other spring blooming species, among others Crocus flavus Weston (Syn. Crocus aureus), have been called 'Crocus vernus' door other authors. This confusing synonymy should be avoided, and I have deleted the content of this redirection.

This redirection should be removed or it should point at the true species, i.e., Crocus flavus -of which Crocus aureus is an obsolete name. No page has been created till now for Crocus flavus. Since there is no proper venue for it I propose to purely and simply remove this doubly incorrect redirection.

As indicated previously by P@d@w@ne: pour la faire supprimer, tu la blanchis en enlevant toutes les informations qu'il y a à l'intérieur avant de sauvegarder, les admins la supprimeront si elle est vide. --P@d@w@ne 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) only an administrator may remove a page. As agreed previously making a page blank will prompt the administrators to remove it.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Réginald! Sorry about the confusion, but the "proper venues" to get rid of an invalid redirect in the English Wikipedia is to alert administrators that the redirect needs to be deleted. This, however, is achieved not by blanking the redirect (which would alert admins alright, except that they most likely suspect vandalism and revert blanking as I did), but by either listing the invalid redirect on WP:RfD, or by prodding it, or by contacting someone directly. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have emptied the obsolete category "Crocus aureus" and multimedia "Crocus aureus" and put its picture in the right category "Crocus flavus" and multimedia "Crocus flavus". Can you please remove the emptied category "Crocus aureus" and multimedia "Crocus aureus"? Thanks, --Réginald (To reply) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you, please, provide me with links to the category/image that need to be deleted? I am having trouble finding either Category:Crocus aureus or an image with a similar name. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Признателен, что Вы меня ещё помните! Конечно, меня мучает совесть, что я не занимаюсь здесь Гуслицами. Из-за этого даже не появляюсь в ен-вики. Стыдно. Что сказать в своё оправдание... Честно говоря, не думал, что у меня будут такие проблемы с языком, ведь планировал писать по определённому шаблону (но тема это не позволяет). Кроме того, из-за некоторых серьёзных обстоятельств я перестал ездить в этот район, хотя места эти имеют глубокую, очень многоплановую и неоднозначную историю. Да и в ру-вики что-то не нападают на меня более... (пока!) Но, всё же, в ру-вики я на эту тему не пишу, всё мечтаю вернуться сюда и продолжить. Более того, все книжки по Гуслицам лежат стопкой на моём рабочем столе в ожидании. Ещё раз простите и ещё раз спасибо! Gastro-en (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Рад, что у вас всё в порядке! И даже если у вас нет времени заниматься Гуслицами, мы всё равно будем рады вас видеть здесь пишущим про любые другие регионы. Ведь если не считать людей, которые время от времени создают небольшие статейки про свои родные пенаты с их окрестностями, темой российской сельской местности заниматься у нас и некому. Хорошие источники по этой теме можно найти только на местах, чем вы и занимаетесь, поэтому цены вам здесь не будет вне зависимости от обстоятельств. Да и трудности с языком без практики сами собой не пропадут :) В общем, возвращайтесь при первой возможности; нападать на вас тут никто не будет, а очень даже наоборот.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added to Commons a video of Medvedev's address concerning his decision to recognise A & SO. The video is here. The video is in Russian, which is all great for those of us who understand Russian. But it sorely needs subtitles added. I could probably add a voiceover translation, however, my sexy heavy Aussie accent would take away from the video. Could you possibly help to find someone, here on en:wiki or ru:wiki, who can add subtitles to the video (the .wmv file) and reupload in .ogg format (or email to me in wmv format to convert to ogg format). Where to ask? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have already added it to: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and 2008 South Ossetia War. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, no one's name really jumps to mind. Let me think about it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, another question. I am working on User:Russavia/Ambassadors at the moment, trying to make use of Kremlin materials, and it fits in with those diplomatic missions articles you may remember me requesting your input on. At the top I've got a video of Putin addressing ambassadors in 2007 at the credential presentation ceremony -- I will work the video into the article someway -- could you possibly check it and tell me if it plays in its entireity with you? It should be around 11min30sec long -- for whatever reason it stops around 2min30-2min55sec -- if it does this for you also, I will go over to Commons and try to get some formatting help with it, in case that's a problem. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to watch the video in its entirety yesterday (and the built-in java player does not function in IE6 on my work PC), but it did play just fine for five and a half minutes before I had to run. The problem is most likely on your end, not with the video.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that, perhaps problem with Java my end which I will check out. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Привет! Заметил,ч то Удмуртов локатарная карта вставляется автоматически. Как бы это для Татарстана сделать? "Бланковая" карта имеется )) --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Просто любой контурной карты для этого недостаточно. Нужен вот такой позиционный шаблон, а для шаблона нужна специальная позиционная карта (в ортографической проекции и с известными координатами её краёв (верх-низ-лево-право)). Моих способностей, к сожалению, на создание такой карты явно не хватает.

Когда карта появится, её надо будет прописать в одном из под-шаблонов, используемых {{Infobox Russian city}}, и тогда локальная карта Татарстана тоже будет появляться в инфобоксе автоматом.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the various stubs at Category:Russia geography stubs, and I see that they are sorted by Federal District. In each of the Federal District categories there are between approx 200-600 stubs. I think it would make more sense to dispose of the Federal District stub types (keep as categories though), and break stub types down into Federal Subject level. Ideally we shouldn't have any stubs at all, but the current sorting of these stubs doesn't allow for editors to edit stubs on areas they are interested in. e.g. someone from Tatarstan may want to edit Tatarstan stubs, but they would be hard pressed to find them in the Volga Federal District stub types category; not to mention an average person would not associate Kazan to being in the Volga Federal District, but rather in the Republic of Tatarstan. I am going to make the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals to break these categories up into Federal Subject level, and will do the re-stubbing myself if need be. It may be an idea if we can really get WP:RUSSIA off the ground, and perhaps encourage members to adopt a stub category, and try to get as many as possible out of stub status in a month (or something like that) - this would help the development of these articles, whilst at the same time would likely create a lot WP:DYK and exposure for WP:RUSSIA. As you are the selo, village, town, city, atlas, list guru, it might be useful if we create (even if in WP:RUSSIA space) laundry lists of the settlements in each federal subject - how to go about that? Anyway, welcome your input. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The federal districts stubs were created when the number of Russia-related stubs became too large for simply dumping them all into the Russia-stub cat, but too small for categorizing them by federal subject. By now, the situation has changed, so I think disposing of the federal districts stubs in favor of federal subjects stubs makes all the sense (although, frankly, I am not looking forward to do the associated maintenance, but you already know what a lazy sob I am :)).

Regarding the lists of inhabited localities, don't worry about that just yet. I am, as a matter of fact, currently working on a single database which would contain this information, as well as the administrative/municipal dependencies between the inhabited localities and the higher level units (selsoviets, districts, okrugs, federal subjects, etc.). Once that's done, it would be trivial to add Census data and whatever other numerical/historical information available in the legislative documents, as well as the sources, and then feed all this to a bot, which would create these stubs without us having to do this manually. Of course, in the meanwhile, if anyone is so inclined, they are more then welcome to create stubs which would contain information that's not easily databaseable. In other words, stuff like this is very welcome, while stuff like this is quite pointless.

As far as the database progress goes, it is not very speedy, but not terribly slow either. Of 150,000+ entries the database is to cover in the end, it now contains over 78,000 (was ~50,000 this May and zero in June 2007 when I started working on the project), albeit this is so far without Census or sources fields filled out (all of the dependencies are in place, though). I hope to be mostly done by the end of summer 2009, barring some unforeseen circusmstances (like me being hit by a bus or my inability to find the official data on two dozen or so federal subjects which are currently missing). Until then, I'd very much like not to see any large-scale attempts at stubs/lists creation, if you know what I mean. Let me know if you have any questions, though. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the lists, I'll leave that in your capable hands. In regards to stubs, do we have to propose them for creation, as I see this is only a wikiproject, or do we just go ahead and create them? If needed, I'll go ahead and propose them. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the process calls for submitting a proposal for the new stub types first. I can't imagine any objections would come up (seems like a no-brainer case to me), but that's not the reason to shun the formalities.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I've started the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/October#Split_of_Cat:Russia_geography_stubs. In regards to the moves I did, don't kill me yet, I promise I can be a useful idiot for a bit longer ;) On another note, could we revisit the naming conventions for Russian places, as the current conventions, IMO, are a little cumbersome. A similar naming structure to the Australian/US conventions would work quite well, don't you think? Perhaps we can discuss this a little more? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I honestly did not expect to see opposition! Anyway, I've submitted my support vote, for what it's worth. If this fails, I suggest we separately submit only those which do make the cut, and then start picking federal subjects one by one, create stubs to make up for the shortage, and submit the new stub types for proposals one-by-one as well. By the way, I know that you previously wanted to get rid of the federal district stub types (in favor of these), but it has just occurred to me that it may actually make sense to keep them alongside. Consider, for example, a river flowing through five or six federal subjects—it's easier to mark it with a federal district stub type than with five or six federal subjects'.

Now, regarding re-visiting the naming conventions for Russian locations, as they say... somewhere, surely... "over my dead body"! Don't take me wrong, you are (as is anyone else) very welcome to re-visit them, but you'll have to do it on your own. The only thing I can promise to help you with there is providing plenty of fierceful opposition to this idea.

Lest I appear to be an unreasonable control-obsessed jerk (which I sometimes am ;)), let my try to explain the reasoning behind my position. First of all, the US (and, it seems, Australian, too) naming conventions do not make a lot of sense to me. I will never understand why I should land, for example, on a page titled Asheville, North Carolina when what I typed into the search/go box was simply "Asheville". Did someone forget to create a proper disambiguation page and list all Ashevilles that exist? Is there an Asheville somewhere else outside of North Carolina? If not, why am I being redirected? Of course, with the US, this reasoning is somewhat stretched, because "City, State" usage is quite common here, so after asking the questions I asked above a reasonably educated person will think of the possibility that such usage is due to conventional usage. Still, an element of surprise still exists ("ложечки-то нашлись, а вот осадочек остался"), and especially so for a non-US person.

With Russia, there is not even that much. You don't hear expressions such as "Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Oblast" or "Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai" in real life, not in Russian, not in English. Consider for a second a person who wants to find information on a reasonably large town in Russia—let's take Yeniseysk as an example. First of all, a reader would have enough problems with figuring out how to spell the name in the first place (Yeniseysk? Yeniseisk? Enisejsk? Jeniseisk?). This, at least, is fairly easy to fix with redirects, not to mention that not all names would have that many possible variations. On top of that, however, you now expect the reader to know where this town is located (in Krasnoyarsk Krai!). Now, do they know how to spell "Krasnoyarsk Krai"? Is it "Krasnoyarsk Krai", or "Krasnoyarsk Province", or "Krasnoyarsk Kray", or "Krasnoyarsk Territory"? How do you spell "Krasnoyarsk", anyway ("Krasnoiarsk"? "Krasnojarsk"?)? Do they even know what a "Krasnoyarsk Krai" is or that it even exists? One can say that these are the problems that can equally easily be fixed with creating more redirects. Equally easily? Really? Here's an example of a moderately complex (and, mind you, still incomplete) redirect system which is required to fill the gaps in the current conventions; a US-like system will have that multiplied ten-fold. What do we achieve in the end? A confused reader who does not understand why he ends up on "Yeniseysk, Krasnoyarsk Krai" when the term he typed in the search/go box was "Yeniseysk".

You do have a point when you call existing conventions "a little cumbersome". The important thing, however, is that they are a little cumbersome to editors, but not to readers. And as far as editors go, would you rather be encumbered with a small task of figuring out the title of the article you are about to create, or by a not so small task of creating hundreds of redirects to cover all possible ways a reader can try to get to "Place, Federal Subject"? Is it that difficult to figure out, anyway? If the name of a place is a red link, then just create it at that name, is all! If there is a dab page already in place, see whether there are any other places in Russia sharing the same name (then you'd use "Place, Federal Subject", unless further disambiguation is required), or any other places in the world sharing the same name (use "Place, Russia"), or the place name is unique but coincides with some other concept (last name, ship name, etc.), in which case you'd use "Place (place type)". If there is no disambiguation page, but the title is already occupied by something else, then just move that something else elsewhere (using the same guidelines as above), and create the dab page yourself. You'll need to fix a few backlinks, but that's not as difficult of a task as it may seem at first.

My final point is considering the maintenance that needs to be done if we are to switch from one system to another. Yesterday, for example, you moved about a hundred or so existing articles to new titles. I know you meant well, but did it occur to you to fix the dependencies (apart from Marks, where you did fix one)? Did you realize that while the links to the articles you had moved remained functional (albeit via redirects, which in itself is already somewhat confusing, because the reason for such redirect is not obvious), plenty of red links with original styling remained? That all of the lists and disambiguation pages and set index articles continued to use the original convention? That if anyone were to create a new article by following a red link from such a list/dab would most surely create it under the title using the original convention? That existing system consistency rate was ~95%, while you moves pushed it down somewhat without creating a new system of consistent naming? Now, if all that had in fact occured to you, and you were simply going to fix all of it later, consider the time you will waste doing all those tasks. Now consider the benefits. Now time again. Benefits again. See where I am going? If anything, WP:RUSSIA could use your time on tasks which are way more worthy than this one.

Anyway, I've just tried my best to demonstrate my reasoning as eloquently as I possibly can. Like I said, if you still believe changes are needed, I am not going to fly to Australia to stop you (besides, it is getting increasingly difficult to smuggle polonium on board). I am, however, going to be just as eloquent when writing opposition tirades to your proposal :) Did I manage to convince you any?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Convinced me? Not too sure. Bored me shitless? Abso-f**king-lutely. :) I see your point, and I'll put that one in the column of "Good ideas at the time, but a truly dick idea in reality"; it will be in good company I can tell you. But at least I finally stopped your laziness for a bit. Note for future, like polonium is like soooo-2006, like mercury's the way to go these days. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercury, shmercury. What do you think I run here, a mining operation? I've got two kilos of perfectly good and only slightly used polonium sitting on the shelf, and I'll be damned if it has to go to waste because of some new fashion developments!

Anyhoo, boring opponents to death is my trade mark for conducting the discussions, and it works every time :) Not as well as, erm, other means, mind you, but pretty close.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you did this revert? Pointing to North-Eastern Administrative Okrug gets you closer to the level of the district than pointing to the whole city. The Moscow article doesn't mention the district at all, whereas the section on the okrug at least tells you the population. A dab page link that doesn't go to the actual subject should at least go somewhere that gives you a little information about it. Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When doing the revert, I failed to notice that the page was classified as a disambiguation instead of a set index. I've got that fixed now. The reason why sets use red links instead of the closest match as you suggested is in the project preferences which relies on backlinks to determine which red links have higher priority. It's also easier to update in the long run—if I were to create the article about the administrative okrug today, I wouldn't be able to catch the "Administrative divisions of Moscow#North-Eastern Administrative Okrug" link, so it would have remained like that possibly for quite a while. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the page still looks like a dab page more than like a set index page. Would you consider renaming it to "List of districts named Babushkinsky" or something like that? Otherwise, I'll create a separate dab page for it. I've been working on cleaning up multiple place-name pages like this one, which are supposed to point to dab pages, not to set index pages. When a page like this gets changed from dab to set index, those multi-place pages need updating as well (per this). Thanks. Auntof6 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, if you make something into a set index page, please don't leave "(disambiguation)" as part of the title. Thanks again. Auntof6 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What it looks like is quite irrelevant as the looks and formatting depend on the preferences of the WikiProject in the scope of which the set index falls; the important thing is that it complies with the technical requirements set forth in WP:SETINDEX: "Babushkinsky District" is a list article about a set of items of a specific type (districts in Russia) that share the same name (Babushkinsky District). A set index can have metadata and extra information about each entry, but it can just easily not have such metadata. Renaming this set to "List of districts named Babushkinsky" makes as little sense as renaming Dodge Charger to "List of Dodge cars named Charger"—it makes the set cumbersome to link to, severely undermines WikiProject's efficiency as the inter-linking dependencies get obscured, and does absolutely nothing for the benefit of our readers. The only good reason to rename this set would be if there were some other entities called "Babushkinsky District" (a ship, a mountain, a district outside Russia), but then it would have to be renamed "Babushkinsky District, Russia" (to comply with the naming requirements and practices used within WP:RUSSIA), and a link to it would be included on the "Babushkinsky District" disambiguation page, which would disambiguate it from the article about the other entity.

As for your example with WP:Multiple-place names (B) cleanup, this kind of idiotic sticking to each and every letter of MOSDAB (and please don't take this personally) is exactly why I disassociated myself with WP:DAB long ago. Do you seriously believe that readers perusing that list care one bit if after finding the entry they need they land in a set index instead of a disambiguation page? Apart from not complying with some obscure point in some obscure disambiguation guide (I'd appreciate if you could point this rule out to me, by the way), what other harm is going to be done if you do in fact link to a set index from a multiple place names list? I don't see it affecting readers' experience any; same goes for our editors. When rules start being enforced for the sake of enforcing the rules instead of improving the encyclopedia, it should be a huge red flag that something is terribly wrong with the said rules.

Finally, on your last point ("if you make something into a set index page, please don't leave '(disambiguation)' as part of the title"), I am not quite sure I understand what you are talking about. Babushkinsky District does not mention the term "disambiguation" at all, neither in the title, nor in the body. Could you, please, clarify?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken about what the page looks like. Even if you've washed your hands of WP:DAB, though, some of us haven't. I hate to see a dab page lost, because we lose the ability to use the popup tool to disambiguate references on other pages.

As for the multi-place name work I'm doing, those aren't dab pages. The note at the top of each of them says that they're intended as "a common starting point for people looking for the various disambiguation pages". That's why I wanted the links to be to dab pages. But, as you say, it may not matter that much.

Sorry for not being clear on the last point. I wasn't talking about the Babushkinski District page, I was talking about edits like this one, where you changed the page from dab to SIA.

I see that you created a lot of these pages yourself, and that's great, but I also see that you've reverted a lot of other people's edits to them (not just mine). Other people are allowed to edit them as well. Auntof6 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point about the popup tool, but isn't it easier to fix the tool (so it includes the set indices as well, perhaps marking them differently so users don't confuse them with dabs proper), than to push for every suspiciosly-looking set to be re-branded as a dab? Tools, after all, exist to serve the needs of the editors, not the other way around.

As for my Akademgorodok edit, it was made in June, around the time when the concept of set indices was being discussed. At that time there was still a question of what to do with set indices, whether they are necessary, and in what way exactly they differ from the disambigs. I don't recall the details around that particular edit, but I would guess at that (rather brief period of) time it wasn't much of a problem to have a page with "(disambiguation)" in its title to be marked as a set. If you wish to fix that particular page, please go ahead, or feel free let me know if you want me to fix it myself. I most certainly would not leave the "(disambiguation)" qualifier in a set index's title now (unless I accidentally overlook it, that is :))

Finally, regarding the reverts, mine are always done for a reason—you are very welcome to point me to any revert of mine and I'll happily explain what the reasoning behind it was. Before we started to switch from dabs to sets, I was asking for minor (and temporary) exceptions to MOSDAB in order to streamline the workflow of the project dealing with Russian inhabited localities. At that time, unlike now, WP:DAB was run by reasonable people who understood that the needs of editors working on actual content are more important than blind enforcement of each and every letter of MOSDAB just for the sake of consistency. So, if I needed to have two red links on a line, or to provide a description which is a few words longer than MOSDAB recommends, I was usually able to convince the folks who cleaned up the disambigs then that these needs were warranted (after all, it's not like I was asking for something outrageous). At some point, however, WP:DAB became mostly an accumulation of cooks for whom "cleaning up the disambigs" and "stomping out dissent" seems to be the sole purpose in life and who forget that the rules are needed to make work easier, not harder. In fact, MOSDAB became so overregulated that it pretty much became useless and actually impeding this project's progress. Luckily, set indices provide just the outlet to continue productive working on the project without having to run into "cleaners" as often. Now, I see, the set index article clause slowly becomes overregulated as well, and I personally find it hilarious that as a reaction to that there is now a "multi-stub" clause, which in effect allows for creation of disambig pages which are exempt from the MOSDAB/SIA requirements. It will probably only last until someone actually decides to use this multi-stub clause in practice, but if it happens, something else will surely surface. Truth is, MOSDAB worked just fine only a year ago, and now it is broken beyond repair. I am sure the desired result (to have to clean up disambigs less often) was achieved (even though a lot of babies had been thrown with the water), and I can only hope that with reduced workload the MOSDAB cooks will eventually lose interest and more reasonable people will be able to restore it in the original state.

Sorry for the long rant (and, again, I would like to remind that it was not aimed at you personally), but I hope you'll be able to understand my actions a little better if you knew what my position was. I'll be more than happy to answer any follow-up questions you might have. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that you could fully protect Template:Foreign relations of Russia and Template:Foreign relations of Russia/doc‎, as these are becoming higher visible templates now, and are continual targets of sockpuppets of User:Koov. I believe the templates are stable with no major changes needed. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the template, but the doc is supposed to remain unprotected (the whole purpose of transcluded documentation is to allow editors to edit documentation while keeping high-risk templates unexposed). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Template:WikiProject Russia, I have asked someone with template knowledge if they could redo the WP:RUSSIA template for talk pages.

• class=a rating of the article's quality; see the assessment department for more details.
• importance=importance of the article to WP:RUSSIA
• small="yes" if the banner should be rendered in its miniature size; this should be used sparingly and only on crowded talk pages for the time being.
• nested="yes" if the banner is being used in conjunction with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}.
• A-Class=indicates the status of the article's A-Class review, if any; see the review department for more details.
• peer-review="yes" if the article is currently listed for peer review by the project; see the review department for more details.
• old-peer-review="yes" if the article was previously listed for peer review by the project; see the review department for more details.
• collaboration-candidate="yes" if the article is currently a candidate for the project's Collaboration of the (insert timeframe here--week, fortnight, month, whatever).
• current-collaboration="yes" if the article is the project's current Collaboration of the (insert timeframe here--week, fortnight, month, whatever).
• past-collaboration=if the article was previously a Collaboration of the (insert timeframe here--week, fortnight, month, whatever)., the dash-separated dates of the collaboration period; must be left blank otherwise.
• attention="yes" if the article requires immediate attention; see (need category created) needing attention for more details on when this should be used.
• needs-infobox="yes" if the article needs an infobox added or updated; see Category:Russia articles needing infoboxes
• needs-Cyrillic="yes" if the article needs Cyrillic script versions of their names added to the lead paragraphs; adds articles to Category:Articles needing Russian script or text
• Imageneeded=The article needs an image (other than a map); adds articles to Category:Russia articles needing images.
• Imagedetails=(appears only if Imageneeded is set to yes) - Additional details to describe the image that is requested.
• B-Class-1=
• B-Class-2=
• B-Class-3=
• B-Class-4=
• B-Class-5=

I've borrowed some of this from Template:WPAVIATION. Is there anything else that could be added? To see the B-class criterias, look at the commented out fields in source. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I'd also suggest adding the parameters for taskforces/workgroups (Russian history, Russian geography, etc.), but that can wait until such taskforces/workgroups are actually established or converted from the currently nominally independent wikiprojects (such as WP:WikiProject Russian federal subjects, which is candidate #1 in line to be shot).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If these templates are being created I think the best thing would be to make them viable and create seperate categories to completely split regional geography stubs. However given that many of them don't have 60, some of them far off it, could you create stubs, however basic to make them eligible or create a list of missing places for each oblast that other editors such as myself can move through and help you stub them. I know you said that you didn't create stubs because it meant more articles requiring work but now might be a good time to stub the districts with a fact or two and create some articles on rivers etc. Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the plan (see the first paragraph of this response). By the way, if you have time/inclination to do the rivers, we could use your help. I'll stick with the populated places. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a list of rivers or lakes or whatever for each oblast and I'll be happy to help stub them. Its best that the entirety of them are split which is an important step to make I think. I've been pretty busy at present, I;ve just been splitting Asian building stubs. It was ridiculous. For example an Azerbaijan TV mast in Baku was tagged with a asia-building-stub with a picture of Angkor Wat in Cambodia!! I ensuring that they all hit 60. I'm also partly through translating Tenerife. If you could point me to some red links to top them up pleas elet me know. RegardsBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a ready list like that. You can, however, flip through Encarta/Britannica or some such to see what needs to be added. If you don't want to do it (which is understandable, since you have your hands full), it's no big deal, I'll make sure this task is taken care of. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it, see if I can find some red links already in articles to blue link. Russavias moving quickly within the sorting, we just need everyone of them to hit 60 to create supporting oblast categories, which, given the size of Russia shouldn't be too difficultBlofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

		Order of the Lazy SOB - 1st Class
		By the powers vested in me by the Constitution, I hereby confer upon you the award Order of the Lazy SOB - 1st Class in recognition of you blindly encouraging my ill-informed suggestion of the splitting of the Motherland geography stubs, and then sitting back to watch me bore myself shitless for 5 days, giving me false praise whilst pissing yourself at my expense behind my back. Might I also suggest a username change from Ezhiki; Ezhiki's are a useful animal and serve a purpose; I suggest a change in username to Ласки, because that was one great weaselling you pulled on me there. Accept this barnstar as the weasel you are, and wear it proud -- I would if I thought of pulling a fast one like you did. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the praise, at least, was not "false", even though when posting it I did miss the "save page" button a couple of times because of laughing so hard behind your back. In any case, hazing is now over—welcome to Wikipedia, for real :)) The down side, I guess, is that now I have to watch my back lest you come up with a suitable revenge :)

P.S. I have just finished re-designing the infobox for the Russian federal subjects and am about to re-design one for Russian cities, and perhaps create two new ones (for urban-type settlements and rural localities). Would you be interested in adding them to the existing articles when I am done? Shouldn't take more than a couple of

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are right about watching your back, I've already started implementing an elaborate plan in which I will be ready to pounce once you make that one small mistake, for this was not hazing, but a severe case of dedovshchina, and I feel entitled to get you back. In future, I will stick to making silly suggestions only. On a side note, I noticed the re-design of the F.S. infoboxes, they look better now. The implementation of the city ones, shit, that is going to years to get onto the articles. How about we gauge the true interest in WP:RUSSIA and ask the entire project to put these infoboxes on the articles in a F.S. they can select. Spread the work around a little bit? Oh yeah, and thanks for the BS (the barn-star that is). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding these infoboxes to articles was meant more like a joke than a serious proposal. I can tell you right here and now that if you announce this on our noticeboard, the interest, if any, is going to be minimal. Not to mention the fact that when an infobox is going to be three times longer than the actual article (which is going to happen in 90% of all cases), it is not that good an idea to add it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, thanks for the B.S. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed. Colchicum (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have supplied my comment there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Colchicum (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I am working on User:Russavia/Embassy at the moment, and have seen on the Peter Behrens article that the embassy building was one of Hitler's favourites, but am unable to find a usable, citable source for it; and also that the building was instrumental in the coming of age of Stalinist architecture. Could you possibly have a look and see if you can find any sources for this for me, in English, Russian, Swahili or Vulcan. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not my cup of tea (plus my Vulcan is a bit rusty), but here's at least something (do an inline search for "Однако Гитлер, высоко"). You might also want to ask Colchicum, because he is the master of all things thataway. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't think of asking Colchicum; I got a reply at User_talk:NVO#Help_needed_to_find_a_source, but will leave msg for Colchicum as well. Cheers. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a video to Hymn of the Russian Federation#Regulations -- good visual addition eh? I've looked over the article myself, and couldn't quit believe that it is WP:FA; if this is ever put up for FA review, I think it would be demoted. A lot of it is relying on sources from 2000, so may not be valid now, etc. What to do about this? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, much better with a visual. As for the article's FA status, which part do you think is not FA-compliant? The sources may be from 2000, but there weren't many (any?) changes since then, so what exactly is wrong and/or subpar?

As a side note, when you moved the article from "National Anthem" to "Hymn", have you checked the talk page first? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On the move, I didn't, so feel free to move it back. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. The reason I did move was due to the lead and infobox. On the status of the article, it's missing a lot of inline citations and reliable sources not being used for references. Other info, such as at the time of its re-introduction, Russia was coming out of a schism, and morale across the country was in the duldrums, and new symbols were needed to "lift" the people, blah blah blah, is missing. It could do with a lot more don't you think? You can stop being lazy and help with this? ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop calling me lazy and just do it yourself?  :) In any case, you will find that if a topic is unrelated to my beloved administrative divisions and their history, my help can be, erm, somewhat, you know, lackluster (for the lack of a better word). I'll gladly find (or try to find) you anything specific, but when it comes to vague things like "article needs to be improved", "this area is not covered well", and "would you fix it, dammit", I tend to immediately recall my own to-do list, which in the past three years grew to obscene proportions.

Speaking of specifics, on the second look you do seem right about the citations—inline citations are definitely missing in quite a few places. If there's any particular sentence you are having rough time referencing, I may be able to find something.

Finally, on the title, I don't want to move it back myself. If anything, I feel quite silly when I find myself in a position of having to tell native speakers how to use words in their native language, especially when it comes to distinguishing nuances as fine as in this case. If you read the discussion on the talk page, you'll see that my main complaint was that the dictionaries I have consulted (and remember, those are American dictionaries) defined "hymn" primarily in the religious context, and that's how I first and foremost perceive that word (and, as you might imagine, the fact that the modern Russian anthem is basically a slightly re-designed Soviet anthem does not help me out with merging two different concepts in my head into one word). Others didn't provide much insight or help either, so at this point I'd rather see a linguist (or several linguists—the more the merrier) to take a look at the naming dilemma. Where the hell are all the experts when you need one? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that the information about coming out of a schism cannot be properly referenced (in compliance with WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV), let alone whether it could be related to the new symbols (there are opinions that the new anthem had an opposite effect, if any, and I'd rather agree with them). So it is missing for a good reason. Colchicum (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, too, but if we do manage to find a reference of this sort, I see no reason not to include it. Same goes for a reference of opposite sort, of course :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When I talk of coming out of a schism, it means in terms of Russians searching for a national identity; this is something that is still being searched for today. Talking to friends in Russia over the years, for example, no-one flies the Russian flag, it's only used these days for sporting events; until recently it wasn't even used for this, and the laws were recently changed to specifically allow for this. It's all part and parcel of finding that identity. Having done some quick searches, I've come up with:

There's a lot more, including (need to get access to this, as it appears Yeltsin came around). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also came across this from June this year in which 56% of Russians feel pride and admiration at the anthem, even though only 40% (up from 19% in 2004) know the first words of the anthem. Judging by a similar survey in 2006, the knowledge of the anthem is greatest amongst the young (all you old farts still sing the Soviet-era words). There's a ton of info out there. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

An offtopic, but I especially liked the first "related story", according to which it is no big deal that Russian citizens cannot name the colors of their flag and the order of the colors. After all, "such knowledge is not something that's needed in real life". Nevertheless, when those same Russians hear that 75% of Americans cannot show Iraq on the map, that somehow becomes a great deal and indicates nothing short of stupidity. Aahh, bigotry... how would humanity survive without it?! :)

A pretty good source overall, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ezhiki;

Here you are:

• Category:Crocus aureus
• Crocus aureus

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 07:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reg, you'll need to ask someone at the Commons to delete those. I am not a Commons administrator, so I don't have a capability to delete anything there. My first impression was that you needed these deleted here, in the English Wikipedia, where I would have been able to help you. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eziki,

In the left box "languages" of my user pagina I find the link العربية, which points out on pagina دخول / إنشاء حساب. Please remove it, if appropriate.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reg, not sure what you want me to do. If you need the link removed from your userpage, I can, of course, do it for you, but since it is your userpage, it would be more appropriate if you removed it yourself. On the other hand, if you need the page to which the link leads (or the redirect itself) deleted, I, again, cannot do it because I am only an admin here in the English Wikipedia, and cannot delete pages in Wikipedias in other languages. If I misunderstood your request completely, could you, please, clarify what you need? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eziki, I have put two links: FR:Utilisateur:Meneerke bloem and NL:Gebruiker:Meneerke bloem. I have not put this link to an Arabian page. I really don't know where it is coming from. Please check it and remove it, if possible. Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, mystery solved :) The problem was with the {{User doctor}} userbox which you have on your userpage. Someone added the Arabic interwiki link to it improperly, so it showed up on all pages using the userbox instead of being contained in the template. Fixed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Réginald (To reply) 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, is Ingushetia the smallest federal subject? What about Moscow? Colchicum (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just Moscow, but St. Petersburg, too. I guess someone forgot that both cities are federal subjects on their own. If you exclude the federal cities, then yes, Ingushetia is the smallest by area.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please intervene? Some, ahem, idiot is edit-warring there. Colchicum (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks that Alex has already intervened, but I'll keep an eye on the article as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wha...??! Why? I wasn't watching the developments around the bot; could you, please, point me to some backgrounder or something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is isn't a sudden decision. Its one that gradually became apparent that was difficult to achieve in the circumstances. First of all there was all the hoo-hah at village pump which was enough to put anybody off wanting to create new articles with a bot, then it was partly due to problems with compiling decent data to an acceptable level to create, vile and cynical people like Mick McGee around and the disgusting attitude towards us at unrelated places like see the bottom of comments here, problems with bot programming and the committments and restrictions that Fritz has in operating it. We hope the bot can still be used for GEO cleanup tasks in the foreseeable future though Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth, I am still hoping I'll be able to utilize Fritz's services once my database is ready. But why close the bot? Can't we just suspend it or something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Fritz is still open to requests but I don't think he is willing to create any new articles with it, however detailed because of such editors like McGee and their cynical attitude and lack of time or energy to do so. If you know of something that could be done with Russia let him know if you think it will be accpetable by the community. I had hoped for another BOT prgrammer to run it but Fritz seemed the best we have aside from Kotnisnki who is dedicated to only Poland. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit can be done with Russia, it's just a matter of having a database to work off of. The progress I'm making is not at the fastest of paces, but I hope by the time the database is ready Fritz will cope with the burnout, because WP:RUSSIA will definitely be able to utilize bot services at that point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with GEOBOT creating articles was a lack of reliable/verifiable sources of information - I couldn't resolve contradictions in the various free resources available, and without an automatic way to extract them, this method would be no quicker than manually generating the articles. I had not forgotten about your Russian database from your conversations during the debates earlier this year. When you have some data to use, give me a shout, and I will use FritzpollBot to generate your articles. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritz, I'll keep keeping you in mind. :) Please do not abandon us. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering - in order for me to be ready when you are (deployment ready at the same time as data), can we have a conversation somewhere about the structure of your databases? Are they in an actual DB format, or are they large lists of information? I'm sure we'll have the usual notability issues, but I'd like to be prepared technically and clearly, I need a lot of time to prepare! Any sample data you have would also be useful. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just sent you an email. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes undeniably they need to be of a high standard to think about creating them, given the stick we've had from some people on here about it. When the time comes I feel a work page to discuss and plan it would be more appropriate than a wikiproject, but I look forward to seeing what you have to offer in the future. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, there's a bit of an NPOV problem at Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia in which I have removed statements from their "foreword"-like placement in the article. I have placed the on the talk page for discussion at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia#Inappropriate_POV_quotes. As you are not involved in this article in any way, could you possibly provide an opinion on how/where/if to place these quotes on the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add to what Alaexis has said—quotes constitute background information and should be treated as such. Quotes can be used as an illustration of the points covered in the text, but should definitely not be used as a standalone tool. In other words, opening a section with quotes is not good, and neither is inserting quotes (no matter how well-sourced) which have no direct connection to at least one sentence in the main text. Inability to write good, coherent prose is not a justification to litter the article with quotes. An encyclopedia should summarize views, not to cite them verbatim. (Feel free to move this post of mine to the article's talk page if you think it adds any value).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've posted it to the talk page now, of course, hopefully now you will also be accused of only pushing your POV, as I have been now, although I clearly state at least twice that it needs to be worked in as prose. I'm getting sick of such rubbish, would you believe; I am a firm believer of letting the facts speak for themselves, we shouldn't be promoting one side of the argument in such ways. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WT:AWB#AWB access. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Mawdsley the White General Kornilov laid siege to Ekaterinodar, the capital of the Kuban Soviet Republic, on 10 April 1918. In the early morning of 13 April, a Soviet shell landed on his farmhouse headquarters and killed him. These are very well known facts about the Russian Civil War which make it impossible that the Kuban Soviet Republic was proclaimed on 13 April. It had already to be in existence in order for it to come into conflict with the White forces. What regime do you think that General Kornilov was besieging on 10 April? Do you dispute the date of his death and whom he was fighting with? Colin4C (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken care on Talk:Kuban Soviet Republic.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I am Simon Morris's lawyer. Mr Morris is being subjected to a repeated media campaign intent on destroying his name, manipulating all articles written about him. It appears that Wikipedia is being used as a front to manipulate facts and distort the truth. I am no expert on Wikipedia and am seeking a direct contact I can entertain sensible discussions with. I had temporarily deleted all the erroneous material on Simon Morris's profile, which I would appreciate being reinstated whilst we discuss this matter. I would also appreciate it if further amendments to the article be prevented for the time being. Please can you contact me on paul.cooper.27@hotmail.com (for security) from where I will redirect you to my law firm email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PC-Legal (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've brought this up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Simon Morris, where you are welcome to post if you have any questions. Someone has already re-worked the article to comply with our requirements regarding biographies of living people. This is a complicated case, and since I don't have much experience dealing with this kind of problems, I delegated it to the people who are more capable of handling it than me. Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ezhiki, you don't have to appologize, even implicitely. It is excellent what you did. I put that page into my watchlist. Dc76\^talk 05:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Gnezdovo, to which you have been one of the primary contributors. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, "one of the primary contributors" is quite a stretch; my involvement was limited to copyediting and minor tweaks. The subject is definitely out of my area of expertise. I will announce this on WP:RUSSIA's noticeboard though, because the real primary contributor doesn't give a shit about the English Wikipedia any more.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ezhiki. Can you add mk: in the languages box on the main page, too? Thanks, Bomac (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Check this out... :-) --Illythr (talk); 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a great laugh :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, there is a dispute regarding Litvinenko's claim that Putin is a paedophile. I removed the information as WP:BLP and placed it on the article talk page. Unfortunately, Biophys disregarded this and re-inserted the information unchanged into the article. I have removed the information yet again, and have now placed what I believe is a NPOV assessment of the claim on the talk page. Could you please take a look and participate in the discussion, as I do appreciate your always neutral input into such things. Can be found at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Paedophile_claims_removed_as_WP:BLP. Cheers --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you have proposed a revised version, I don't really see a point in commenting previous opinions, so I simply cast my support vote. In case folks are going to oppose, I've placed the page on my watchlist and will participate if anything develops. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Somethings developed. You may be able to explain WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, etc better than I can. Could you have a crack at it for me please? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey amigo how are you?. My sister recently spent a weekend in Moscow (incidentally stayed in the same hotel room as a group of paralympians from Beijing!. She very much enjoyed it but tells be she had a run in with one of the guards at the Kremlin who told her rather stonely to leave the premises! She tells me that Russian girls in Moscow are immacuately well dressed with lovely boots and coats and attractive. Is this true? Said it was very expensive. P.s how do you say How are you? in Russian? Count Blofeld 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong guy, Blo. I haven't been to Russia for more than eight years, and I avoid Moscow like a plague. The dressing and expensive parts are likely true—some things never change. "How are you" would be "привет" (privet, pree-veht) if you just mean to say hi, or "как дела?" (kak dela, kahk dee-lah) if you truly want to hear how the other party is doing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your forgot Превед! (Preved!). --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, like it would make any difference with his accent :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True, haha, anyway, кагдила Ezhiki? Hope you doing good today :) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And forgot to ask, did you see the video from Comedy Club? :) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I did not particularly enjoy it, but it was an instant hit with my wife, who watched it at least twice :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd like it much. Wonder why? ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, on Moscow, you'll have to excuse Ezhiki, he's undoubtedly one of those Saint Petersburg snobs. Your sister isn't stretching the truth -- Moscow these days is like one would have imagined possible. The city is flush with cash on a scale not seen in many others. If you look at designer boutiques such as say Gucci, Armani, Zegna, etc, most cities will only have 1, or possibly 2, boutiques, whereas Moscow seems to have these boutiques as corner stores. There's so much cash with the wealth being shared around, that even the unemployed drive high-end cars. :D --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's judge people we don't know that well :) I've never been to St. Petersburg (although it's on my list of places to see), and my views towards Moscow are mostly the result of me originating from this region, where they are shared by quite a few people. Moscow's "wealth shared around" is actually one of the prime reasons for not liking the place. The "wealth", you know, is accumulated at the expense of the rest of the country, and it does not get "shared" much outside MKAD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well SPB was a credible guess. ;) And you are right about the Far East sharing the same opinion. And myself to some extent, but of course I don't say as such to my Moscow mates, you just have to humour people sometimes. ;) Aside from MKAD, you kinda forgot this place, but there's too many jokes one could make about that, right? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Too many" is putting it softly. Before you start making them at my expense, though, consider that I come from a much more southern portion of the RFE :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I have vague memory now of you stating somewhere that you were from that place. I wanna get there some day, got plenty of invites of places to stay in the event it happens; it's just so damned expensive to get to VVO these days, even from Japan and Korea it is hella expensive. Although if my freebie flight to MOW and ULN eventuates, it may be a possibility then. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

привет!! Cool. I take it the role call I suggested worked. You now have 27 active members. Hey where are you from then Ezhiki. Vladivostok? Count Blofeld 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It did (thanks to Russavia) and no (but relatively close).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, just a little something I needed to share with you. This. Can you draw any parallels between this video and WP? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition now ("Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism") is not entirely correct according to the page. Either Weak Atheism, Practical Atheism, and the Rationale section are going to have to be changed (or removed), or the second definition is more correct as it is all inclusive. Rather the lead should probably be closer to "Atheism is defined as an absence of belief in any deity, or non-theism. It is usually described as an explicit position which can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism." What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against the idea behind your revision; my concern was that the end result of your edit, frankly, sucked. When a featured article starts with "atheism is", followed by an unrelated reference (which is a leftover from moving things around, but our readers don't know that!), followed by white space in the middle of the sentence, it's a dead giveaway something is wrong. I would have stopped reading right about that point. Please work a little more on the lead structure and double-check your work before hitting that save button. As to the substance of your edit, I have no objections. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even take the links or white space into consideration. I'll spend more time on cosmetics next time. Thank you. -- Jayon (talk Friday, 2008-11-21 21:29 UTC

Hi Ezhiki. I know you have a million things on your list of things to do, but when you get the chance, can you create a stub for this place. Right now Mulino goes to a place in Oregon!! Best regards - hope you're well, Buckshot06(prof) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you worry about my list of things to do. I'd always rather help someone out by creating something that can be used right away as opposed to continuing working on stuff that may be of use only later (if ever). Anyway, I've created a disambiguation page at Mulino, and from what I see from the incoming links, yours is the settlement of Mulino in Volodarsky District of Nizhny Novgorod Oblast. Unfortunately, I don't have anything on this place apart from what's available in ru_wiki, so I'll create a stub based on that after I return from my holidays. I'll also try a more thorough search and who knows, maybe I'll find something to add to those basics as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please also create a stub for Khankala? 13 red links. Colchicum (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ezhiki. Would add my support if you had the time to create a stub for Khankala as well - more information's always good. GO THE HEDGEHOGS! Best regards from the UK, Buckshot06(prof) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I feel bad, because the pitiful stubs (Mulino, NNO, Khankala) I've just created are hardly worth any praise. Well, at least the links are blue :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of facts to the article, as per a cursory web search. Vmenkov (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, December 4, 2008 (UTC) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sasha, can you take a look at this for me. As you are probably aware, only Pochta Rossii is able to issue postage stamps; there is a burgeoning market for fakes out there (like Tuva issuing Elvis stamps...yeah right). I've tried pointing this out to the editor in question, but he is claiming that I need to cite that these are fakes; the point that I have said that these republics issue stamps needs a citation is being completely overlooked. Cheers, --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey who??? You sure you intended to post this question for me? In any case, here's a source for you—see Article 11, which explicitly states that "federal organs of the executive power have exclusive rights to issue the... means of postal payment". The "means of postal payment" are stamps, as per Article 2. Hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. For future reference, the responsibility to provide sources lies on the shoulders of the person adding information, not removing it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

At the Talk:Vyatsky page you removed the disambiguation project info and said "a set, not a dab". You also said that the list on the Vyatsky page was reclassed as a set. So far as I can see, although the villages all share the name and are in Russia and thus form a mathematical set of a sort, they bear no other relation to one another. I can understand a ship article where all of the ships named Enterprise share more than just the name, or a Signal Mountain article where they share more than just a name, namely being used as a signal point. However, here, I see no extra ordinary connection that would convert this page to a "set index article". This is the classical case for a disambiguation page. If it is to be a "set index article", what additional connections tie these villages together to make an article? --Bejnar (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Bejnar! As per WP:SETINDEX, a set index article is "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name". The items on the Vyatsky page are all inhabited localities in Russia, sharing the same name, hence the page meets the definition. Note that WP:SETINDEX does not call for the set indices to meet any additional requirements beyond these two. The implementation of the set indices (including further refinement of their definition) is up to the WikiProjects under scope of which these sets fall. WP:RUSSIA's preference is to treat pages containing lists of localities sharing the same name as sets, because the project's flow benefits from having orphaned red-linked items on such pages—something MOSDAB explicitly prohibits. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have always believed in a geographical exception to that prohibition on orphaned redlinks in dabs, at least where GNIS has a formal listing of the place. I realize that that exception has not been formally realized, but if you look at the non-Russian disambiguation pages for places you will see it in action. I do not believe that the "set index article" was intended as a refuge for this exception, because on that basis all Template:geodis disambiguation pages would be "set index pages" using Earth instead of Russia as the unifying theme. I think that we should work to formalize the geoname exception, rather than stretch the usage of "set index article" beyond what was intended for that usage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bejnar, I appreciate what you are trying to say, but, having spent countless hours trying to make this exact same point heard (and understood), I have no desire whatsoever to fight the ridiculous MOSDAB bureaucracy which we've built any further. I have a huge project to work on (Russia is big), and it seems that MOSDAB/SIA/whateverbiguation crap keeps holding me back at every step. If WP:SETINDEX says there are two requirements for any given set, that's what I am going to work on. If you submit the geodis exception formalization request to WP:DAB, I assure you you'll have my wholehearted support, but in the meanwhile I just want to be able to do actual work. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove the space following the string of */:/# chars at the beginning of each line in lists, as you did at 4 (disambiguation).

1. The space saving is insignificant.
2. They promote readability when editing.
3. They can aid in selecting blocks of characters while editing.
4. Occasionally, you break the page in ways that are hard to spot (too much so to justify trying to add it to your drill), as you did in changing the entry beginning

   #4 ...

   to

   1. 4 ...

TIA,
--Jerzy•t 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You forgot they are a matter of personal preference and are not regulated by the guidelines. I, for one, find extra spaces cluttering and distracting, remove them at every possibility, and will continue doing so in the future. Please consider doing the same. I do, however, apologize for the screw-up with the #:#4, but the entry doesn't seem to belong on that page anyway. Thank you for understanding.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

...for reverting the vandalism. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Any time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:56, December 10, 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcom, back in january 23rd 2007. ;-) Can I ask a basic question: You greeted me in my discussion page. Should I then greet you back in my discussion page? Or in your discussion page? Komputist (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, almost two years! As a matter of fact, you don't have to greet me back nor are you even expected to do so (although, of course, you can, in which case it is up to you where and how to do it). The welcome message is basically a means to let you know that someone noticed you around and is willing to help you out should you require such help. If you don't need any help, you are quite welcome to proceed on your own. If you do, feel free to let me know (but then again, you can also ask pretty much anyone who's been around long enough). Welcome back, by the way! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, December 11, 2008 (UTC) 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page or a redirect to Yekaterinburg? Most of the incoming links (if not all) refer to Yekaterinburg. Colchicum (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I've turned the page into a disambig. Someone still needs to rectify the backlinks, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, December 12, 2008 (UTC)

Just a head's up, I've nominated the video of the national anthem as a featured sound...Wikipedia:FSC#Russian_national_anthem_at_Medvedev_inauguration_2008. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While I do hate this anthem, it's just my personal opinion. The media is, of course, worthy of being featured, so I'll vote accordingly. Thanks for the heads up!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:54, December 15, 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know you hate the anthem, but I do thank you for weighing in with your opinion on the featured status of the file. Thank you again, Mr Kasparov. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet totalitarian music with brain-dead, talentless lyrics superimposed—can you, in all honesty, say this combination makes for a good anthem? The only reason why I support the nomination is because this sorry excuse for an anthem is, unfortunately, one of the official symbols of the country; something that needs to be covered and illustrated. The mutated piece of poultry at least has some real history behind it; the anthem is simply an artificial construct sending so many wrong messages on so many levels.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:05, December 16, 2008 (UTC)

I never did like the Soviet lyrics, but do love the tune. I remember down here, even during USSR days, that people found the music to exactly what an anthem should sound like. I'll have to do up the video of the real sorry excuse for an anthem; the monstrosity that was played at Putin's 2000 inauguration; it is soooo dreary, made the entire affair seem so drab (and Soviet-like). Or for the worst excuse for an anthem, you really should listen to this POS sometime -- Advance Australia Fair -- Advance Australia Fair? WTF? We are girt by the sea? GIRT?!?! WTF is that?!? I'll have to point Bakharev here, he can attest just how exactly sad it is. And don't bag the Chernobyl Chicken man?!? Here's your job for today..... --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The shoe... There's supposed to be a shoe following this... No??!! Chuckle-chuckle...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:03, December 17, 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, I will have to give you that one, it's a pisser, and I must declare it was somewhat wittier than what my response would have been. Note, that I am not conceding anything here amigo ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Shalom Ezhiki!

For starters , spelling Qumuq would by much more correct because letter Q represents(in this case) Qumuq phonetic better.Same for the other Turkic languages.Take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_language. As for Latin alphabet , it's been used for Qumuq language and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in Makhachkala section. It's somehow possible for Qazaq language even though officially they use Cyrillic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyzyl-Orda. Using Avar Language in Latin alphabet is also allowed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan

Also Qumuqs call their language Qumuq tili or Kumukça and if Russians do it in a different way it doesn't mean it's right.For instance they call English Anglijskij.Would you now correct English Language Section on Wiki?

Don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions.

With kind regards, Malcolm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.109.165.245 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Malcolm! No one is denying that the language is in fact sometimes referred to as Qumuq, but you should not be forgetting that this is the English edition of Wikipedia, hence the name most often used in the English language was selected (whether it was originally based on Russian spelling or not is quite beyond the point; we are looking only at the end result, at what English dictionaries would list most often). The article about the language is located at Kumyk language and not at "Qumuq language" precisely for the same reasons why the article about the Russian language is located at Russian language and not at "Russky language". Please see one of our basic guidelines, WP:UE for details.

As for the fact that Latin alphabet was used by Kumyk in the past, that is also a fact no one is trying to deny. However, the ledes of our articles, when they are to include words in foreign languages, are limited to modern spellings and transliterations only. Including a Latin-based spelling in, say, Tatar is at least somewhat justified by the fact that the Government of Tatarstan is, with variable success, pushing really hard to switching to Latin-based alphabet; in case with Kumyk there is not even that little. What is the point of including the spelling which is no longer used anyway? In my view it seems just as pointless as insisting, for example, on including pre-reform Russian spellings in all articles which provide modern Russian spellings. It doesn't help the readers at all, nor is it a common practice in Wikipedia, which is why your edit has so far been independently reverted by two people.

Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:53, December 15, 2008 (UTC) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Ezhiki! Above I've already gave you two good examples of using Latin-based writing system in languages which now officially in Cyrillic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyzyl-Orda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagestan (note the name of the republic dagestan in Latin-base avar language alphabet) It seems nobody has problems with that. While I agree with you on the spelling Kumyk as the most common version of that language or ethnic group , I still think that it would be appropriate, informative and useful for users of Wiki to add the version of the name of Makhachkala written in lain-qumuq alphabet given the fact that this writing system is still being used by kumyks (or people of kumyk descent to be exact) who live in Turkey now.

Actually you didn't answer my question, so I gonna ask it again - why Kazakh and Avar languages may use latin alphabet and Qumuq not? According to you or your logic, all words written in latin based alphabet in languages which currently don't use that writing system , must be removed from Wiki.You got to work to do, man!Lotsa work.

Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah depending on what you're celebrating if you celebrate religious holidays at all. Regards, Malcolm