User talk:Ezhiki/2005

новый формат

Да, хорошо продумано. Интересно, предполагается татарские названия на новой страничке заместо красных сслылок, или вместо русских?

з.ы. Район Алексеевский. кс - этьо две буквы. т.е. х использовать нельзя. --Untifler 23:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Если честно, то я уже несколько запутался с русско-татарско-английскими наименованиями и с тем, какие же всё-таки было порешено использовать. Судя по предыдущему содержанию секции об административном делении Татарстана, русская форма (вернее, транслитерация русских названий) была признана за основную (я основываю это на том, что в скобках она была упомянута как "официальная" версия). Поэтому в татарской версии, я полагаю, ссылки останутся такими же, только в скобках вместо русского кириллического написания будет приведено соответствующее название на татарском. Татарские названия, по-видимому, также должны быть редиректами на "официальные" транслитерированные русские.

Опять-таки, это на основании предыдущего контента страницы. Поправьте меня, если я не прав.

Что касается Алексеевского района, то традиционно имена "Александр" и "Алексей" и производные от них названия транслитерируются через "x". Во всех остальных случаях используется "ks". Я следовал этой конвенции во всех прочих случаях. Как обычно, всегда можно создать ещё один редирект с вариантом написания через "ks".

В общем, успехов вам на сессии, и ждём обратно с новыми комментариями. Не знаю, заметили ли вы, но Татарстан стоит следующим в очереди в Russian federal subjects WikiProject. Очень надеюсь на вашу помощь и поддержку после сессии!

—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Country infoboxes

Hi, there's a new Solution E that's been proposed for the country infoboxes; I've changed my vote from the Solution D that I proposed, earlier. The new option, proposed by User:Zocky, transcludes a subpage instead of using the template mechanism for this.

See: Nepal's infobox is implemented at Nepal/infobox using Template:Infobox_Country; Tuvalu's is implemented at Tuvalu/infobox as a wiki table.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries

voting: Wikipedia:Country_infobox_vote

Thanks. — Davenbelle 02:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bad solution, but I still like Option C better, so I'm not changing my vote. Thanks for the notice, though.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:51, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it; — Davenbelle 00:09, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia vote

I urge you to reconsider your vote on the inclusion of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as dependencies in Europe at Template talk:Europe. The CIA World Factbook now lists them [1] as dependencies of the UK and has separate entries for the two ([2] & [3].) They also have this note posted on the main page [4]:

Recent confirmation that the United Kingdom Government administers the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus as dependencies (and not as lease areas like the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba) has required a changing of their status and their addition to the Factbook as new entities.

Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 06:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I changed my vote in light of the new information.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bashkir

Привет! Сессия вроде бы завершена, так что можно опять приняться за википедию. Статься про башкир почему-то оказалась совмещена со статьёй о башкирском языке. Т.к. у меня с английским не очень, то придётся разгребать завалы кому-то другому (намёк ясен?). Ухудшает ситуацию то, что статья содержит вставки из Британики (правда зато есть какие-то факты, которые я не слышал никогда, но зато важнейшие событиия, как-то восстание Пугачёва, революция - остались опущены). Очень надеюсь на помощь. Статья на русском довольно полная, статья на немецком - даётся неплохая ссылка на язык. (следует разделить статью о языке) Ещё вспомогательная статья: Zeki Validi Togan. --Untifler 21:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Статью про башкирский язык попробую перевести и поместить куда надо (в Bashkir language вместо стоящего там сейчас редиректа). Статью про собственно башкиров поправлю немного, но собственно фактов добавить вряд ли смогу, поскольку по этой теме неграмотен-с. Переведу также из русской википедии и вставлю то, что смогу понять из немецкой.

Не увидел, кстати, в статье о башкирах ничего такого, что можно было бы вырезать в статью про язык. Поэтому работать буду исключительно с русской версией.

Также не очень уверен, как башкиры будут во множественном числе (Bashkir или Bashkirs). Пока оставлю как есть, позже перепроверю. Лингво по этому вопросу почему-то скромно умолчал. Если найдёте—сообщите.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:50, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Вроде по традиции всё-таки Bashkirs... По крайней мере Гугл 10000 результатов выдаёт... Кстати, я ещё кое-чего добавил на List_of_ethnic_slurs, Offensive_terms_per_nationality. Прошу проверить... --Untifler 18:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Готово, проверил. Что касается башкир(ов?), то мне тоже кажется, что Bashkirs — это правильно, но ни в одном словаре пока не нашёл наверняка.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

History of the administrative division of Russia

Thank you! I'm glad you like it. Are you planning on continuing the series, either into the past or future? Also, what sources are you using? I might do some further work on it myself if you don't intend to. (Incidentally, feel free to reply in either English or Russian- I'm a native Russian speaker, though my computer isn't currently configured to let me type in Cyrillic.) -Didactohedron 05:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

English is fine. Yes, I do have plans to continue the series. The reason I stopped was that I was not able to find any meaningful information on the subject for most of the rest of 18th (after 1763) and for the first half of the 19th centuries. After much painful research I finally am close, but I will still need to devote time to put everything in order and to re-check the facts. I am not using any single source to compile the series; most of the information comes from various odd sources like old geography books, Russian federal subjects' websites, reference materials, and, of course, Google and its little pal Yandex. Very often the sources contradict each other, and none of them has all of the information in full. In fact, despite all my work I still am not 100% sure that information already in the articles is completely correct.

It should be very easy to compile the articles on the 20th century though, because the closer it is to modern times, the easier it is to find good sources, and I have plenty of very good materials already.

It is very unlikely I will continue the series in the other direction, however. Whatever I was able to find on the administrative structure prior to 1708 is extremely incomplete and contradictory. It's probably possible to gather this information from good Russian libraries, but I do not have access to those (I live in the US). So, basically, I am looking at 1708-2005 span for now. I may change my mind in future when this project is complete, but it's hard to tell this far in advance.

In any case, if you want to research this subject as well, you are very welcome to join. If you live in Russia, you can find plenty of materials I probably don't even know exist. This is a humongous project (I did not realize what I was getting into when I started; which is also true of any other project I started so far :)), and whatever help you can render would be invaluable.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillic & Abur

Привет!

Хочу уточнить кое-что. Транслитерация с кириллицы - графическая (по буквам) или всё-таки фонетическая. Просто если мы транслитерируем кс как x, то и дж должны переводить как j (т.к. dzh они не понимают). Например Dzhokhar Dudaev. Тем более что он даже и не русский. Хотя конкретно тут может быть случай, когда менее правильное имя более популярно...

И другое. см. ru:Абур. Древняя земля Komi практически в вике не представлена... Прошу посодействовать в переводе (желательно участие кого-нибудь, кто имеет опыт перевода языковедческих текстов). Большое спасибо за Bashkirs!

--Untifler 20:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Транслитерация, она таки по буквам (фонетическая передача называется транскрипцией). "Кс" как "x" транслитерируется только в очень ограниченных случаях, и вызвано это в основном традициями. Что касается "j" для "дж", то хотя фонетически это не является неправильным, традиционно названия с русского языка таким образом не транслитерируются. В других языках, разумеется, всё может быть по-другому, но когда с русского на английский транслитерируется пусть даже и нерусское имя, то для "дж" используется именно "dzh". Если в оригинальном языке используется "j" (сама по себе если алфавит — латиница, или по правилам транслитерации с того языка, если алфавит другой), то она может перенестись и в английское название, но это уже не будет попадать под правила транслитерации с русского. В конечном же итоге, выбор варианта для Википедии будет зависеть от частоты использования каждого из этих двух вариантов (согласно процедурной политике Википедии).

Про Абур ничего сказать не могу — до сегодняшнего дня я это название даже не слышал. С языковедческими текстами лично я тоже почти не сталкивался (вот если бы по химической промышленности или компьютерам, это другое дело :)), поэтому перевести даже если и смогу, то с профессиональной точки зрения это будет выглядеть очень коряво (намного хуже, чем с башкирским языком, который хотя бы имеются желающие подредактировать).

Про Коми имеется на мой взгляд неплохая заготовка в Komi Republic; в принципе, найти информацию для её наполнения труда желающим составить не должно. Я за это браться не хочу, потому что у целой кучи федеральных субъектов статьи ещё примитивнее, и интересных подробностей я про Коми не знаю, поэтому ограничиваюсь общими данными. Куда собственно смотрят сами жители республики?

В общем, если дадите мне ссылок на тексты для перевода, то по крайней мере могу попробовать. Посмотрим, что из этого получится.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Да собственно про республику ничего и не надо переводить... В конце концов интернет дойдёт и до Воркуты ;). Только я не уверен, что сами коми знают про абур... (- источник здесь) Это только в татарстане, по-моему, каждый школьник знает на каком алфавите кто в каком году писал. Тем более, что как в русском, так и английском интернете никаких заметок про древнюю историю Коми и Перми ничего нет... в татарской энциклопедии есть чуть чуть, но это в формате: Wisu, tt:Biarmia. .. Кстати в фильме "Тринадцатый воин" с Бандеросом, сценаристы перепутали коми с викингами...

Про Дж.. Стоит ли у представителей нац.мен. прописывать отчества? Это впринципе свойственно только русскому языку?

--Untifler 22:22, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Почитал статью про абур — очень интересно, но браться переводить, пожалуй, не стану. Слишком много узкоспециальных терминов, о которых я не имею ни малейшего понятия. Может быть стоит бросить клич на русской части Википедии — наверняка там найдутся специалисты?

Что касается отчеств, то поскольку насильная и добровольная русификация имён практиковалась в советское время довольно широко, то отголоски этой практики докатились и до наших времён. Отчества политиков я прописываю только в инфобоксах и политических разделах субъектов, но только потому, что для этих людей соответствующих статей ещё не создано. Как только соответствующая статья будет написана, информацию об отчестве можно будет перенести в неё (не обязательно даже в качестве основного варианта имени, но упоминание должно быть сделано, поскольку варианты с отчествами периодически всё-таки используются).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:25, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Disco Dog

For reference, there is more on this here.
Ezhiki, I'm not sure if you're aware but there has been an anonymous vandal (dubbed the "Charlie Dog Vandal") that is insisting there was a cartoon TV show that featured Charlie Dog (more info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tregoweth/Archive_2). Please see the history of the Charlie Dog page and its discussion page as well as the Disco page (see its history). This person always uses an anonymous IP (4.160.x.x). I believe he has made new edits in 1974 in television and 1978 in television to add this show (which I cannot find using google search anywhere, the only thing that comes up is a special feature on the Garfield DVD released this year). He then updated my Talk page to show that the show must exist. I'm not sure of his motivation, but I think this person is not fully in touch with reality. Jeff schiller 16:42, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that. No wonder I was having hard time finding anything. Anyway, I was going to re-edit 1974-1978 in television and remove this show. Thanks much for your pointers, though; I would still be uncertain what to do if it was not for your note.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:47, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Despite the decline of high culture in our society, there is nothing we can do about it.

Whatever this means?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 23:56, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

197X in television

Hello, Ezhiki. You may want to check out Talk:Main Page. Some anon. user has posted a note over there about your "vandalism" on pages about '197X in television'. I'll let you decide, if you want, to delete or respond to the accusations. Regards. -- PFHLai 19:14, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I replied on the Talk:Main. Hopefully someone will read and sort this out soon enough so the Main Page talk page is rid of irrelevant discussions. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cities and towns

I moved all cities and towns into the new category Category:Cities and towns in Russia. Please remove the obsolte categories Category:Cities in Russia and Category:Towns in Russia to prevent include of articles into them. MaxiMaxiMax 12:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already took care of it. Category:Cities in Russia cannot be deleted at this time as it is currently stored in the Wikipedia databased in a compressed form.

Thanks for moving all the cities and towns into a single category, by the way. I can imagine what a tedious job that was!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway thanx for your support. Moving of articles was not so tedious - I additionally set many missed interwikies between Russian and English articles, now interwikies for cities and towns are synchronized, so it was useful for both language parts. MaxiMaxiMax 16:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: List of ZIP codes in the United States

Yes, I do intend to put content into those articles. I am going to be using a tabular format for each article, grouping the ZIP codes into sections by third digit, with a 10x10 table in each section to cover the last two digits of each code. For cities in the 50 states, the format in each cell looks like this:

Section 005:

44: NY-103
Holtsville

The section gives the first three digits of the ZIP code (005 in this example). The 44 is the last two digits. NY is the postal abbreviation for the state, and 103 is the FIPS 6-4 code for the county (Suffolk County in this example). FIPS county codes should always be three digits, with leading zeroes added if necessary. So this example resolves the ZIP code of 00544 to Holtsville, New York.

I'm using these sources:

• http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp
• http://www.quine.org/zip-all-0.html et al.

Each ZIP code should only be associated with the city that the USPS tags as "acceptable (default)" for that code.

And as for my user name, I wish for it to remain red everywhere, even in the special pages. Denelson83 15:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have my doubts about using FIPS codes for counties, though. This does not look user-friendly, as these codes are not really in common use. Also, are you going to list special ZIP codes as well (those assigned primarily to businesses and other similar entities)? What about updates (USPS makes changes to ZIP codes distribution fairly often)? Overall, however, the system looks pretty good—way better than the listings we currently have. Plus, it's about time someone put the ZIPs information in order.

Here is another resource for you, which I found to be of immense value: Melissa Data (check their main page as well). They have bunches of additional information not available through USPS, although they limit the number of queries you can submit in a day (which is easily overcome by utilizing proxies). Hope this helps. I'll try to join in on the fun if I have time, so count me in if you need help.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:42, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Disco Dog?

It's still there on between 1974 in television to 1978 in television, no one has removed it. User:Jeff schiller insists he never saw that show, perhaps anyone wants to talk to American Broadcasting Company about a "non-existent" show? Wikipedia is doing nothing.

I did remove it when I was unable to find any proof of its existence. You shouldn't be worrying so much about it. Perhaps if you could produce some evidence about this show (since you are the one who is so concerned about it), it could be put back in the listing. Thanks for your caring attitude.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't, you kept the title there in the 1974-1975 American Television Schedule. through 1978, if you are lying to this Boston guy.

I never edited 1974-75 American network television schedule until just now (see it's history). I have just took Disco Dog off that schedule and the schedules following it for the same reason I took it off elsewhere. Please refrain from adding this show to any article until enough evidence is produced.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:52, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Put this back!

What do you mean by "refrain"? I am asking you to put the title back, the 1970s cartoon TV series was obscure, enough. Some people may be interested in the show.

User:Music Lover ←fake signature. No user with this name exists as of 3/7/5.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:25, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Do not forge signatures, 4.188.100.66. He has his reasoning. If the show is popular enough, you should be able to see it somewhere else on the web.Penwhale

Penwhale responded in the way I was going to. I have no problem with Disco Dog whatsoever, providing you can produce any significant proof that the show actually existed. Obscure or not, there must by some proof.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:25, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

The show had to do nothing, actually nothing with "foolishness", and could not be blamed on violent behavior. There are no comic books based on the show. As others think they didn't like the TV show, so I am asking you, Ezhiki to put it back, though I don't like disco all the time.

No, I will not put it back. Even if one ignores the fact that you (or whoever else edits in your IP range) overwrote other shows in the schedules to have Disco Dog added and assumes it was a mistake, there is still no indication anywhere that the show is real. If you quote at least one reliable source that reports this show, I will be more than willing to investigate this further. You surely used some sources to add this show to Wikipedia? If you did not, then it would fall under unverifiable information and will stay in its current state—removed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I WILL HAVE YOU REMOVED!

If you report me to Vandalism in Progress, that I would add the show, again, no one will accept this. And the dog could be blamed on "foolish" or violent behavior is NOT true in this article, I am going to talk to someone and my family. I was shocked that you will investigate, after I would add this show again.

Regards, Music Lover

Nobody will report Vandalism in Progress because the dog is not violent enough. I will be awaiting for results of your talk to someone and your family. No need to be shocked; whether the show is added or not, more investigation is going to be necessary; this is not vandalism per se. Please do not add the show until further results, because if they are not available this is going to become even more confusing. Best,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 03:28, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

One said that Charlie had fewer cartoons, but, my family said they "don't care for the Charlie Dog 1970s crap", their comments were last year. They don't know who he is, and claimed the show had pop tunes, which he appeared in. I could not find the show on both dogs on Google, which they insisted they were tired of. CBS blamed comic books or cartoons on violent behavior, I did hear it on 60 Minutes.

Regards, Music Lover

Now I also quit, but I will come back to take revenge against both of you in the near future.

4.xxx.xxx.xxx aka Music Lover

It would be much more appreciated (and productive) if you could come back in the near future with some kind of tangible proof of the show's existence.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 13:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I had been warned not to talk to you.

Now not this again, I have been told to not watch the "non-existent" cartoon TV series for the second or third time, you insist doesn't exist?!

You may have to check the Cartoon Network schedule, if it isn't there, try the cartoon-related articles. This so-called person who lives in Boston told me Charlie, an little dog never appeared in the Scooby cartoons, I tried to apologize, but he did not believe me, how many times do I have to say this.

Regards, 488.xxx.xxx?

WP:VIP

Heya. Just noticed that a user tried to blank you 2 times. :/ But at least you didn't lose your cool, which is very professional of you. Keep up the good work... Just thought I'd mention it. Best regards, Penwhale

Funny as it may seem, I was actually looking for a vandal that would jump on me. I really needed to vent. Not at the expense of being unprofessional, of course :) Thanks for the compliment.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rant is good. Ever feel like ranting randomly because people don't get your point? :) Penwhale 19:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, tell me about it :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently suffering from that... See Here to find out why I'm having a need to rant :P — Penwhale 19:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Russia

Sorry. I did an incorrect rollback. The problem was with the previous anon. Mikkalai 19:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it should have been something of that sort. Thanks for restoring it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Guberniya

Привет! Может быть лучше использовать gouvernorate на темплейте "История Татарстана"? --Untifler 21:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Кстати, нельзя ли как-нибуть вкратце выложит данные о башкирской истории на страницу Bashkortostan c Bashkir, Zeki Velidi Togan ect? Просто лично я не обладаю даром пересказыкать вкратце, тем более на английском... --Untifler 21:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

С темплейтом мне лично (пока, во всяком случае) всё равно. Пусть будет, как вам удобнее. В любом случае Governorate General англоязычным читателем должен быть понятнее, чем Guberniya. Неплохо было бы также написать хотя бы стаб. Я могу добавить немного (в рамках информации, имеющейся в статье History of the administrative division of Russia) про историю административной единицы как таковой (учреждение губернии, территориальные изменения), но к истории Татарстана это будет иметь отношение постольку поскольку.

Про башкирскую историю вкратце попытаюсь описать.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:25, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Governorate General is general-gubernatorstvo, which is not the same as guberniya, i.e., governorate. 17:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Хорошо, спасибо. Кстати, вот ещё одна небольшая просьба. На немецком есть хорошая статься de:Chakassen, аналога которой на английком нет вообще. Былобы неплохо вкратце это переложить на .. незнаю как они будут in plural. m.b. Khakas? Кстати, и у немцев бы надо чуть подправить - с 1990 (?) Хакасия - не область а республика. Опять заранее большое спасибо... --Untifler 20:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Правильно будет либо Khakas, либо Khakass. Google выдаёт примерно одинаковое количество хитов (второй вариант немного чаще). Я использовал первый, поскольку, во-первых, и по-хакасски, и по-русски слово пишется с одной "с", а во-вторых, в силу моей невоспитанности второй вариант мне не нравится из-за своей задней части :). Со второго варианта поставил редирект на первый, так что проблем быть не должно.

Статью перевёл, хотя пошла она намного хуже, чем про башкир. Надо обязательно чтобы кто-то, кто знает немецкий хотя бы на уровне восьмого класса, перепроверил. Было бы неплохо также статью дописать, а то она получилась немного куцая.

Республикой Хакассия стала в 1992 году, что я в немецкую и английскую статьи добавил.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

River naming

user:Markussep is on the spree of removing word "River" from river names: contribs, talk. What do you think? Mikkalai 17:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what an awful awful awful initiative. I'd understand it if the folks at WikiProject Rivers agreed upon it (although I can't imagine why), but making such massive changes without even asking—terrible! This user has my full lack of support on this.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you to talk to him, since it is quite possible tha he may ignore my sole voice. Mikkalai 17:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I have just added my message to yours on his talk page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Put the hedgehog back

I don't like the new pitcure, an hedgehog being attacked by an supposedly bird.

Just did. Don't like the new one either.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria

Привет! надеюсь, не сильно надоедаю? Ещё раз спасибо от имени всех хакасов! Очень прошу проверить на корректность языка Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria! (Как всегда подозреваю что ошибок там до кучи, но хоть убей, их не вижу). Кстати, есть ли на русской вике сторониики тотального перевода всего с русского на английский? напр ru:Мусават?

Да нет, почему же, мне самому интересно отвечать на запросы; проблема только в том, что не на все запросы я могу помочь.

Упомянутую статью обязательно прочитаю и поправлю сразу же как только пройдёт запарка на работе. Скорее всего, на следующей неделе.

Насчёт русской вики не знаю — я там появляюсь довольно нечасто. Попробуйте связаться с Maximaximax'ом — он, как самый активный администратор русской части, сможет, наверное, помочь. Проблема с текстами для перевода в основном, по-видимому, заключается в их узкой специализации и терминологии — не каждый возьмётся перевести статью о том же Мусавате, например.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:32, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Archduke or Grand Duke for Nikolai Romanov?

Please see a note I left at the talk to the Nikolai Romanov article. I know too little on the topic, so I posted a note at talk page rather than make a correction in the article. Please see if you can make an authoritative decision on this. Not that the rest of the article can't use some help :). Also, I tried to put into order the situation with several Grand Duke Konstantins in WP. This also needs improvement if you get to it. Stchastlivo! Irpen 00:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much enough on this subject to make any kind of decision either! I will, however, try to do some research on this when/if I have time. Sorry for not being of much help for now.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Russia

Thanks for your very friendly post at my page. :-) Finally there are some people that like my idea. It really seems to be a hard task for some countries. I am in contact with User:Ran for China, but they already have english. He helped me with Mongolia. Russia is a nut to crack ;-). I would like to use province for oblast, this seems to be ok. Like in Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgygzstan and maybe one day in Belarus and Ukraine. Guberniya would be Governorate. Raion and Krai is still not solved in my head. District is reserved for okrug like in Serbia and as used in speach of Gennady Seleznev [5]. In Czechia and Slovakia the kraj are Region. But maybe we do not have to coordinate this, meaning of words can change. In Britannica I found "Sector" for Raion - never heard this before for subnational entity. I would not like this. Was it your idea to use krai=territory? In de: and eo: they use krai=region. If we would do the same and then having it like Czechia and Slovakia in the same run, what do we do with raion? County? Do you think there is opposition to use Oblast=Province for Russia? I will try to put some of your Naming conventions in the translation list. Your list is really good, this should be in an article so everybody can see it :-) Tobias Conradi 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never said I am going to go along with your plan, but I am definitely not going to prevent you from doing it :) You have some very legitimate questions, many of which stopped me altogether.

Using "province" for "oblast" seems to be OK, and it is definitely acceptable when one is trying to explain what the heck an "oblast" is. The problem is, the actual English word "province" (and yes, I know it's not a native English word, of course) is translated into Russian as "провинция". Not only this word is heavily used to descibe subdivisions of certain other countries, it was also used as a name for subdivisions in Russia itself. Guberniyas were originally subdivided into "provinces"/"провинции". It is not really a problem when one talks of modern day administrative subdivisions, but in historical context it might be very confusing if you use the same word "province" to describe oblasts as well. For example, in 18th century the Goverorships General (guberniyas) were being transformed into vice-royalties ("наместничества"), and as a result, the original subdivision of guberniyas into provinces ("провинции") was replaced with their subdivision into oblasts ("области"). It's pretty easy to see that if you translate both "провинция" and "область" as "province", you have a pretty big problem on hand.

"Districts" are currently being used to describe both raions (районы) and autonomous districts (автономные округа) (as well as federal districts—федеральные округа). So far it has not been a problem, but I've been thinking of getting rid of "districts" altogether, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what your project is trying to accomplish. "Counties" sounds wrong when applied to Russia, for some reason. It's been long since Russia had any counts :)

"Territory" for "krai" seems to be the least controversial of all. Still, it may conflict with other countries subdivision types, which may be on a completely different level. "Region" sounds pretty generic and inaccurate; I would reserve it for historical regions (like Vyatka region).

Summarizing, these issues are exactly why the table I referred you to has so many columns. Each of them is good for certain occasions, but none of them is good to be used universally. I've been hoping to develop this table into an article someday, but I am quite hesitant to publish it yet as it is very incomplete (which may be hard to believe), and has a lot of inconsistencies. You are welcome to use it for general reference, of course, that's why it is there. Thanks for the compliment, by the way :)

Anyway, let me know what you think. I'd be happy to help where I can, it's just that I am overall sceptical that a universal solution can be developed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:22, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Existence of the ord "провинция" is a little bad news. On the other hand the phase out of провинция and introduction of oblast is good news. Seems they had the same purpose / same level. Maybe in more specific articles one would use transliteration. I agree with your opinion of "Region", for me too it sounds not very administrative. mmmh and county is realy strange. I allways think of US if I hear it. But it is used on SE(sweden)-subdivions and some others. To use county in Europe can cause confusion in some countries because of historic connotations. With content from your table I enriched Subdivisions_of_Russia#Translation maybe you can help with some cirilica (last word was serbo-croatian) Tobias Conradi 22:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Дачный better only "rural"?. Kurort (german) is not only beach. it is more "spa". Tobias Conradi 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

just found that Сельский is already rural. Subdivs of Russia seems to be really complicated. Nevertheless if I have time I will move the oblasts. Tobias Conradi 23:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was kind of hesitant to see the contents of my table dumped into the article. The main reason is that they were unorganized and incomplete, and there were many organizational issues with them as well, which I hoped to (eventually) work out before presenting the article to the general public. After reviewing how the article looks now, I see that it turned out a bit better than I thought it would. Oh well, maybe there will be some fresh good ideas to finally organize all that stuff.

As for the oblasts, I'd recommend that you do not move them all at once. Once you have a more or less consistent system, move a couple of articles and see what the feedback is going to be. If you don't have the system worked out yet, don't move the article, or you'll spend the rest of your wikilife fighting people opposing your changes without being able to explain what kind of a final result you have in mind :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

thx for your warning - and wao I also followed it. Only moved A-K Oblasts. Without your warning I would spent one more hour, but ok - I will cease the moment and go to bed ;-) Tobias Conradi 06:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Ezhiki! I was disappointed that you did not stop Tobias. Do you really think that his changes from provinces to oblasts makes sense? I was very surprised that just both of you discussed this topic and you gave him chance to do what he did. At least it could be better to discuss it at first with larger number of users who work in this area. May be it's because of my lack of English but I strongly against this rename (and other massive renames as well). Oblasts are hundred more times more used in English than provinces to refer russian subjects, for example in google - "Amur Oblast" - 85,300, "Amur Province" - 695. We can make a note that it corresponds to English provinces if it is so (BTW - where in English speaking countries we have provinces?), we can also make a bunch of redirects, but article name must be the most common English name or it will be not encyclopedia but a mess of opinions of users who thinks that they better know how to name articles. For example next very clear user will decide to rename Provinces to Regions ("Amur Region" in google - 15,300) - should we look at it with calm? I thought that decision how to make Russian subjects was already made and it would be better to insist on it than allow people who are out of the topic to rename all to whatever they like. MaxiMaxiMax 07:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Tobias, one—you've got your first feedback, and two—whoa! It looks like a little war was fought this night, and the smoke is just settling down. Guys, please, don't fight like that. The last thing we need is editors reverting each other on sight. From other comments I see there is a truce in effect now, so well, let's talk.

To clarify, when I suggested to do some moves to see what the response is going to be, I did not mean half of the oblast articles. Just one or two would probably have been sufficient. I would have interfered, of course, if I had noticed it right away, but unfortunately Tobias started moving articles after I logged off from Wikipedia for the day (which, considering the fact that he lives in Europe and I—in North America, is not surprising).

Speaking of the actual change itself (from "oblasts" to "provinces"), I am myself divided. I never liked the articles being named "XXX Oblast" and "XXX Krai" in the first place, and indeed I was thinking of renaming them to "provinces"/"territories" when I just joined Wikipedia over a year ago. Also, it did not look like there was a consunsus at that time—someone merely created the articles under "oblasts"/"krais" without probably giving much thought to it. It was a workable first-time solution, especially because most of the articles didn't even exist. Later, due to the later lack of general interest to the articles on Russian federal subjects (I hate to admit that until fairly recently I was pretty much the only one doing any significant work on them, but that's the truth), the original naming convention stayed there. Two things stopped me from moving the articles to "provinces"/"territories" a year ago—first (the silly one) being new, I did not even know that non-admins could move articles at all (as you may remember, of the skins did not have a "Move this article" link; incidentally, that was the skin I used), and second, by the time I learned otherwise, I became unsure if such a move was at all possible without introducing numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities ("districts" case being the best example of that). So, I left the article titles alone in hopes that may be one day a clear non-conflictious system would emerge, that would allow for use of English terms. I am yet to see such a system to come out of Tobias' project, but at least he's working on it. So far, the results only reassure me that we either have to stick with "oblasts", or resort to awkward solutions (such as Britannica's "sectors"). A mix of terms, of course, is also possible (such as using "provinces" for oblasts, and native terms like "krai" and "okrug" for the rest), but the benefits of this are questionnable, and they do not live up to my consistency-keeping efforts. Thus, I prefer to remain neutral pending the community's solution. Perhaps a poll could be conducted on the Russian wikipedians' notice board to agree upon terminology once and for all.

To answer Max's questions. Even if all oblasts are renamed to provinces, there is no way further renaming (e.g., to "regions") could be substantiated. "Province"/"oblast" are clearly the best names for oblasts—"region" sounds too generic, and other terms are probably even less accurate. Plus, while at least some benefits can be seen from changing "oblasts" to "provinces" (even if one disagrees with the whole concept of such a renaming), none such benefits exist when "provinces" are renamed into "regions" or anything else. So, if I were to support this renaming, it would be one-time deal only.

As for the "BTW" question (which English-speaking countries have provinces)—the answer is Canada. Not that I think it matters in this case, though.

Finally, to make my point of view even more clear, I would like to say that I strongly dislike Wikipedia's policy of "the most common English name". I would prefer to see the articles to be placed under the "official long names" (i.e., "Russian Federation" instead of "Russia", "United States of America" instead of "United States", or (*gasp*) "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev"). To me, in the vast majority of cases there is only one "official" name, while there can be a slew of more or less "common English names" (for which the redirects could be the best solution). While there are some merits to the "most common name" policy in some cases (mostly when political POVs are involved), I strongly believe that placing an article under the "full official" name is of more educational value. The community, however, does not seem to agree with my opinion, so I am sticking with consensus and am enforcing it when necessary. For this case, the problem is also that there is no "official English name" for Russian oblasts—a quick scan of official oblasts' websites confirms that (they can call themselves "oblasts", "provinces", "regions", "territories", or sometimes a mix of these terms on the same page). This is where a community consensus (reinforced by the poll results) would come most handy.

Well, I hope this leads to a more productive discussion and actions. Please let me know what you think. Please leave the articles alone for now until more people can voice their opinions. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

due to lack of time just want to reply to your note on my page. I have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming on my watchlist and I check this regulary - so I will notice any whisper ;-) Will answer to the post later best regards and thanks for your neutral interference (wao, what a term) Tobias Conradi 20:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using oblast/krai is the most correct (and the least controversial) way to name regions of Russia, as opposed to 'region', 'province', 'district' etc. Just imagine as if Russians styled each and any US State as guberniya, i.e. Georgian Guberniya, Alaska Guberniya... funny, isn't it?

And yes, use common English name policy just needs to get a long ride home. Let's just create us.wikipedia.org and uk.wikipedia.org so the purists of the 'common use' could just continue to apply their 'common sense' arguments there. I just admire this particular part:

• '[by Google test,] the standard English transliteration of Николай is Nikolai... [though] I prefer Sergei, I agree Sergey is also common, much more common than Nikolay... I didn't say this situation is logical, I just said what the standard usage is.'

As a side note, 'Russia' is as appropriate as the 'Russian Federation', because these are both official names of the country as per Constitution of Russia. It's too bad that even Russians often mistakenly assume the latter name as the only official one. DmitryKo 21:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, calling US states "guberniyas" only sounds weird because Russian language, unlike English, is by no means international. If Russian had the same acceptance in the world as English has now, it would probably even make sense.

As for the "common English name" issue, I did not really see any controversies based on the differences between the US and UK names variants. Would you care to provide examples, please—I'm quite interested to check them out.

Nikola(y/i) vs. Serge(y/i) example is quite ridiculous, I tend to agree with you here. All I (personally) want to see is one system of transliteration used consistently; without introducing horrendous rules such as ["й" is always transliterated as "y" except when it follows a vowel (in which case it transliterated as "i"), with exception of "-ый/ий" endings (transliterated as "y" except in "Yuri")]→I did not make this one up! It is an actual rule from a transliteration guidelines brochure I used to have.

As for Russia vs. Russian Federation, you are right, they are both official, although Russian Constitution is really not an authority over the English language. But again, I did not really see any arguments over which name to use, Russia is pretty much used all over the English Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

English does not have universally accepted regional divisions either. Even ISO 3166-1 does not try to unify the subdivisions in any way (and I've almost compiled a worldwide list of regional entities), so using local conventions is still the best way around.

I wasn't referring to the differences of US/UK English, I was talking about endless this is Englsih language Wikipedia so please use Enlgish words arguments, which imply droping native spelling of names altogether. People who say so must have never been learning any foreign language. These people just need a separate namespace for their 'pure' English where they would routinely anglicize every foreign name until they are blue in the face. They fail to understand that remembering endless variations of each and every name is what makes the life seem like hell and it has nothing to do with the English language itself. There's a good reason why every doctors universally use Latin names of human organs whatever their native language is, why programmers and IT specialists use English terms in both speech and writing and so on.

I agree with you that consistent transliteration rules would be the best thing, but I've come to opinion that it's better to avoid literal transliteration or in favor of phonetically correct transcriptions or word-by-word substitutions. Literal transliterations did their job good in a typewriter age, but as Unicode is gaining worldwide recognition, providing a name in the native alphabet is simply becoming a non-issue; phonetically-transcribed and native versions are all we need to use. Yes, the rule above seems a bit... unfriendly, but curiously I've came to just about the same conclusions on Transliteration of Russian into English/Harmonization. I even went as far as removing most transliterations of Russian military ranks because they attributed to nothing but unneeded clutter... DmitryKo 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tuva

Yes, thanks for the note. I am aware that some Tyva links still need to converted. I was pretty sure that unofficial Wikipedia policy has us going with the most common name as opposed to the official name. It also goes without saying that this is an English encyclopedia. --Merovin;gian (t) (c) (w) 01:21, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I've only just begun! As you can see from my contribs, I got caught up with Jeff Weise. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 15:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ezhiki, this is just to say thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination! I really do appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 03:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I strongly believe that you'll be one of the finer admins out there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

New Cyrillic Page

Hi Ezhiki, I'm just a beginner at Wikipedia, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to leave a message... But I noticed your Cyrillic skills on other pages and thought you might be interested in seeing an article I've added to recently: Nadsat, which is the Russian-based slang language from A Clockwork Orange. The page would really benefit from having a native speaker look over it as I've only got access to dodgy internet translators. Is this the correct way to draw attention to a situation like this? Thanks for your time, --Gt 16:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Gt! Of course, you are more than welcome to contact those editors who you think can help you, me included. This is what Wikipedia is all about—mutual help and cooperation.

I took a look at the Nadsat article, and noticed that it's been quite popular today—quite a few changes have already been made since you added the main bulk. I went through the table and made some corrections as well; mostly added/corrected transliteration when it did not match the actual word used in the book, and corrected some Russian words as well. There are still several words, presumably of Russian origin, left, but those I was unable to crack—they could be either derivatives from obscure Russian slang, or invented altogether. Anyway, hopefully the article is in a bit better shape now.

Please feel free to contact me any time for any reason. I may not always have time to help out, but I will definitely try to do my best. Take care, and welcome to Wikipedia! Oh, and thanks for providing me with an incentive to re-read A Clockwork Orange! It's been over ten years since I read it, and it was a Russian translation. I wonder what my perception of the original is going to be.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Russian joke

Привет! Я думаю, что можно добавить секцию о китайцах. В представлении большинмства русских, они коллективисты, у них слабо развита техника и всё на ручном труде.

А также самый короткий про эстонцев:

• от уже третий день парят над городом эстонские парашутисты.

А также некоторые другие...

--Untifler 15:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Насчёт этой статьи лучше обратиться к Mikkalai'ю. Большинство материала и переводы — его.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:14, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Pending deletion shuffle

Ah, so you need to delete a redirect to make room for a page move, but the redirect has been affected by the compression bug. I have a solution for you. Just move the redirect, then delete the redirect that is left after the move. An example: There was a redirect at Governorates of Bahrain that couldn't be deleted, so I moved the redirect page to PendingGovernorates of Bahrain and deleted the redirect left behind after the page move (the one that pointed from Governorates to PendingGovernorates). Voila! Now the page move can take place.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 10:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. I did the Pending deletion shuffle for Komi and Komi (disambiguation) for you. SWAdair | Talk 10:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, here's one simple and elegant solution I did not know about! Thanks for the tip, it will surely come in handy.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 13:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I'm glad I could help. SWAdair | Talk 05:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more note: Check the history for this page. I see you haven't edited yet since I left the last message, so when you log on and see "You have new messages" it won't be immediately obvious that more than one person has edited this page. Someone removed a block of text they had previously written. 'Not sure if that matters, but I thought I would draw your attention to it. SWAdair | Talk 09:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually check the whole history when I get messages. I put the comments back. Thanks for pointing this out, anyway, it was kind of important, albeit somewhat crazy (just read through the "discussion" :)).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Volga Bulgaria again

Привет! Спасибо большое за адаптацию текста! Действительно, в том, что я написал, кое-какие обороты были "скалькированы" с академических источников, и действительно неудачно... Так что кое-что осталось совсем непонятно читателю... Т.о. при адаптации действительно кое-что вышло не так:

• After all of the Tatar lands had been conquered, the word Tatar became a common name for the local population, as well as for the Volga Bulgars, whose ancestors were the most numerous part of Russian Tatars—the Volga Tatars. However, the Volga Tatars did not widely adopt this name until the 19th century, partially because that was the only suitable name to describe the local population, which, besides Volga Bulgars, also included Misha's and Siberian Tatars' ancestors, as a nation.

• Булгары были предками поволжских татар, а не потомками. И поэтому вплоть до начала 20 века в народе использовали слово "булгарин" для самоопределения, но это бы, скажем так, вторичное, так как в первую очередь себя все называли мусульманами. ЯСлово татарин считалось чуть ли не ругательным и навязанным русскими. Однако в конце 19 века из-за сближения потомков разных народов: казанских татар, мишар (эти две группы говорят на очень схожем языке) и сибирских татар (их язык далек от современного литературного татарского) татарская интеллигенция подняла вопрос о существовании татарской нации. И именно слово татарин было единственным, которое описывало все три группы. Многие, конечно бы хотели называться булгарами (хотят и сейчас), но это бы разделило духовно и экономически единую к тому моменту нацию на "булгар" и "приложение". Кстати, наверное слово local не очень подходит: мишари, казанцы и сибирцы практически не пересекаются по месту проживания. В итоге потомки булгар признали имя "татары", но стали понимать себя уже не как потомки только Булгарии, но и как ядро большой татарской нации.

• In the beginning of the 20th century, Russians preferred to use separate names for the nations of the region. The word Tatars was only used to describe Volga Tatars (who are in fact Volga Bulgars).

• Вот о чём написано: в начале 20 века русские стали использовать в качествени названия народов самоназвания народов. Черемисы стали мари, вотяки - удмурты, отдельные племена киргизов - казахами, самоеды - ненцами и т.д. Татары тоже могли бы так поступить (напремер турки "переназвались" из "османлар" в "тюрклер". Но т.к. к тому моменту татары считали своей частью и мишар, и сибирцев, и астраханцев, то решено было оставить за собой сложившееся название. С другой стороны, потомки кочевых татар, котрых было бы справедливо так называть переименовались в ногайцев, каракалпаков и т.д.

• The population of Volga Bulgaria was mostly Muslim. Under the influence of Bulgarian culture, more and more nomadic Mongols and Kipchaks were converted to Islam. On the other hand, the language, used by Muslims of the Golden Horde, transformed into the Kipchak language, adopted by all Muslim Volga Bulgars. As a result of a later mixing of the Kipchak and Bolgar languages, the modern Tatar language developed.

• Кипчакский язык существовал до монгольского завоевания, но после создания зЗолотой Орды, он стал языком интернационального общения, вытеснив монгольский у потомков монголов и булгарский у булгар. Из смеси булгарского и кипчакского и появился современный татарский язык.

В общем, спасибо огромное, осталось всего чуть-чуть подправить :) --Untifler 13:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Переделаю на следующей неделе eventually (looks like it was fixed by Briangotts. Thanks, Brian!).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Fabrika Zvezd

Can you please help me expand the article I started over at Star Factory? Thanks... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've never even heard of this show until today, but I'll see if I can find anything on Russian sites and add to the article.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I can read russian, so the website won't be a problem (the problem was finding it ;) Thanks for that. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

е или ё?

Many times while typing stuff, Russian people leave out a ё in favor of е. Should Wikipedia do this? Is there a policy on this? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is definitely no such policy in English Wikipedia, due to the fact that not enough people care. Russian Wikipedia, however, mandates using "ё" at all times. This is for a good reason, too. While Russian orthographic rules require using "ё" only when there is a good possibility of confusion, that rule is all too often ignored, creating mass confusion at times. It is not a big deal with common words ("звезд" vs. "звёзд" being one of them), but when "ё" is omitted in names or uncommon words, it is pretty bad. I would recommend using "ё" in English Wikipedia mainly because it targets people who, while perhaps being able to read Russian, would not know when "е" really means "ё". Consistency plays an important role, too. There really are no good reasons these days to omit "ё"—it's a letter of the alphabet just as any other letter.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't help it

Ёж - птица ленивая, пока не пнёшь не полетит.

Hell, true :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg

Ежики, оставьте пожалуйста в покое линки по Екатеринбургу. Они там стояли год и никому не мешали. Если рассуждать как Вы, то давайте вообще все линки порубаем везде, если есть малейшее подозрение, что они с коммерческой подоплекой. То, что Вы порезали, содержит массу информации по екатеринбургскому аэропорту и способах добраться в Екатеринбург из других стран. С уважением, Виктор

Здравствуйте, Виктор. Как я вижу, вы-таки не очень внимательно прочитали Policies and guidelines, на которые я обратил ваше внимание выше.

Википедия — проект некоммерческий. Если рассуждать как вы, то каждый, кто добавил в какую-либо статью два–три абзаца информации (пусть даже и очень полезной), должен иметь право разместить свою рекламу. К счастью, проект работает не так, иначе каждая статья была бы усыпана ссылками коммерческой направленности. Поэтому повторю ещё раз: Википедия — проект некоммерческий, построенный на чисто альтруистических началах. Вся информация, которая в Википедии доступна, добавлена сюда волонтёрами. Максимум, чего вы можете ожидать в ответ — это спасибо. Коммерческим линкам в Википедии не место — для этого существуют другие проекты.

Дело вовсе даже не в том, чтобы "рубать" линки, на которые имеется "подозрение" в их коммерческой направленности. Ваши линки, например, ни в чём не подозреваются — их коммерческая направленность очевидна. Поймите, пожалуйста, что это не моя прихоть эти линки удалить; я, как один из администраторов проекта, взял на себя обязанность следить за тем, чтобы policies и guidelines выполнялись. Если я от вас отстану (не рассчитывайте :)), линки уберут другие. Спорить тут бесполезно. Единственная причина, по которой ваши линки "год стояли никому не мешали" (на самом деле не год, конечно, а всего чуть больше двух месяцев) — это низкая профильность статьи о Екатеринбурге. Тоже самое можно сказать и о большинстве других статей о городах и субъектах Российской Федерации; но конкретно за статьёй о Екатеринбурге и Свердловской области никто особенно не следил. Можете быть уверены, что теперь это изменилось. Ну неужели вы сами верите в то, что по этим линкам к вам валом повалят клиенты?

Можно было бы ещё согласиться с ссылкой на страницу вашего сайта, содержащей только информацию о городе/аэропорте/и т.п. Важно помнить, что информация эта должна быть энциклопедической. Большинство же информации на вашем сайте (даже если не принимать во внимание коммерческий аспект) — это информация, более подходящяя для путеводителя (как добраться, что сколько стоит и т.п.). Ещё раз позвольте обратить ваше внимание сюда — What Wikipedia is not — здесь конкретно написано, что Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Для информации, подобной вашей, есть сайт Wikitravel, где вас с радостью примут.

Подводя итоги — я (в очередной раз) удаляю ваши ссылки. Как вы уже могли убедиться, наши российские коллеги (на ru.wikipedia.org) в статье о Екатеринбурге проводят точно такую же политику, что и здесь. Пожалуйста, не добавляйте их обратно — это противоречит сложившейся политике энциклопедии. В противном случае ваш аккаунт будет заблокирован. Если у вас есть вопросы по существу, или вы пожелаете внести свою лепту в развитие Википедии, я буду более чем рад помочь вам на моей странице обсуждения.

С уважением,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Уважаемые Ежики,

Ваши рассуждения вполне понятны. Ссылки стоят повсеместно. По всей Википедии. И многие из них имеют явный коммерческий привкус. Но ведь другие то ссылки Вы оставили, тоже коммерческие. Почему? Или уберите все, или поставьте и мою. Тем более, что она дает полезную инфу. Насчет клиентов, конечно нет, но в Search engines ,безусловно линк на Википедии помогает.

С уважением

Виктор

Остальные ссылки я элементарно пропустил. Уже убрал. Что касается ссылок по всей Википедии, то, как я уже говорил, Википедия — проект, построенный на желании отдельных индивидуумов посвятить своё время её развитию. Кто-то пишет контент, кто-то исправляет грамматику, кто-то ловит вандалов, кто-то следит за чистотой ссылок. Понятно, что писать контент гораздо интереснее, нежели проверять ссылки. Поэтому что-то где-то может просочиться. Если статья популярная, такие ссылки долго не задерживаются. Если нет — то они могут торчать там довольно долго. Если я лично замечаю такие ссылки, то я их, разумеется, удаляю. То же самое относится и другим администраторам и пользователям.

С уважением,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Limited number of external links are allowed. Коли статья называется Transportation and Accommodation, наш сайт напрямую относится к Accommodation и ссылке там самое место. Если Вы так не считаете, too bad. На сем дискуссию заканчиваю. Виктор.

Виктор, мне, наверное, не очень хорошо удаётся объяснить вам, в чём всё-таки обстоит дело. "Limited number of external links", как вы верно подметили, вполне позволяется. Ключевым словом здесь, однако, является "limited", которое, однако, означает не то, что если в статье линков нет вообще, то добавить в неё можно практически что угодно. Линки должны также быть энциклопедического содержания. Например, ссылка на официальный сайт Екатеринбурга/Свердловской области — это правильно. Ссылка на сайты законодательных органов или на сайт губернатора/о губернаторе — тоже хорошо.

Пример с Transportation & Accomodation несколько вводит в заблуждение именно своей Accomodation-частью. Это на самом деле не самое удачное название для секции, поскольку собственно об Accomodation много энциклопедического материала написать практически невозможно — как ни крути, получается путеводитель (напоминаю — Wikipedia is not a travel guide). Что касается Transportation, то в эту секцию пойдёт общий справочный материал (в городе есть трамвайные/троллейбусные пути, ходит электричка, развитая автобусная сеть, аэропорт; такой-то и такой-то пассажиро- и грузооборот и т.д. и т.п.). Разнообразным расписаниям, информормации о стоимости проезда и прочей подобной информации в энциклопедии не место, хотя внешняя ссылка мешать никому в данном случае не будет. Важно только помнить, что ссылка такая должна вести именно на справочный материл, а не, например, сайт компании таксистов. Разницу уловить не всегда просто, но при определённой сноровке можно. Кроме того, всё зависит ещё и от количества доступной информации — будь ваш сайт единственным предоставляющим информацию о городе, то может быть на ссылку на него (вернее, на справочную информацию на нём) никто бы так не крысился — на безрыбье, как говорится, и тощий рак сойдёт за жирного лобстера.

Если у меня будет время, я попытаюсь добавить в статью секцию со ссылками, чтобы было понятнее, какая информация приветствуется, а какая — не совсем.

С уважением,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

Here's a wacky recomendation for the Kaliningrad article. Could you look at the russian version and see if that is worth tranlating?

Yeah, they have some information well worth translating. Why is this a wacky recommendation, by the way? :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Lee S. Svoboda 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dvorak

Oh, I don't know. Is there a Cyrillic Dvorak?

I don't think so. I use standard Russian layout for Cyrillic, and never heard of anything else. I'm using Dvorak when typing English, though. Can't say it helped me much in improving my typing speed, but it's too late to go back to QWERTY now :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Map of Magadan Oblast

At the Magadan Oblast article, could it be that the map is wrongly showing Chukotka as well? Should I color Chukotka to the background? --Nikai 22:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Chukotka used to be under the jurisdiction of Magadan Oblast (until 1991). I guess that whoever created the maps, was including the autonomous districts with the top-level subjects (a similar arrangement can be found, for example, in the Perm Oblast article, where Permyakia is inculed into the oblast's territory). While in Perm's case it is correct (until Dec 1, anyway, when both subjects merge), it is not so with Magadan and Chukotka. If you could color Chukotka to the background, that'd be the right thing to do. Thanks for catching that!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Russian federal stubs

Hi Ezhiki,

Thanks for leaving me a message; stubsensor is going pretty good with just a couple hickups. When it comes to stub decisions I'm going off a fairly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Perfect_stub_article. From that page: A stub is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less. Most stubs fail to cover all but the most trivial subjects completely. I've taken this to mean that completeness in any subject means that the article is not a stub. An article like Saratov Oblast seems to be a non-stub (at least to me) because of the list of divisions as well as a couple paragraphs on the Oblast. All of this is open to interpretation though and I am seeking other people's comments. One idea that was brought up is something in between a stub and a finished article, how about the {{expand}} template as I've done in Saratov Oblast. I'm more inclined to use {{expand}} than a stub. What do you think? Thanks again for the feedback! Triddle 18:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that {{expand}} would be the most perfect solution. I really can't accept an article such as Saratov Oblast as a non-stub, even though the Perfect stub article guideline begs to differ. {{Expand}} seems to cover this gray area very well. Thanks for your comments.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, I wrote a note on the topic at User_talk:Triddle#Stubsensor. Cheers, Irpen 00:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ezhiki

Hi Ezhiki, Thanks for your support on my Adminship request. Seabhcán 07:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Don't feel disappointed if your adminship request fails, though—people are usually very suspicious of self-nominators. If that happens, I'll be more than glad to re-nominate you in a while, but I sincerely hope that you'll go through just fine—like I said, I do not see any reasons why you shouldn't be an admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

1976 in television pages

They were already in the main namespace, my move made no change to how "live" they were. I came across them because they were listed as live page on Special:Uncategorizedpages. The articles were violating the rule against subpages, which is why I moved them. If they are test pages they should have had "temp" in the title, or better yet been located in your user space. - SimonP 05:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I note that you moved the pages back, I have described why these titles are inappropriate at Talk:1976 in television/Temp. What really bothers me, however, is that you deleted the redirects created by the page move. Such redirects are not speedy deletion criteria and it is a misuse of admin powers to delete pages out of process, even redirects. In future please list such pages on Redirects for deletion. - SimonP 13:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Simon, I generally hate to lecture people, but I have to point out to you that you really need to start paying a bit more attention. The articles were NOT moved back to their subpage locations; they were moved to new titles as per Talk:1976 in television/Temp, which, as it very much seems, you also did not read.

As for the redirects, they were deleted because none of the other "Years in television" articles follow the 1976 format (mainly because this format is in its test phase). When the format/layout/structure are finalized, I will be creating appropriate redirects for all years, not just 1976, unless the consunsus is not to. For now, it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to have incongruous and useless (i.e., unused) redirects littering the main space, especially when the articles they point to are a work in progress and can be gone altogether.

In future, please make sure that you read all the suggested materials related to the case before coming up with abuse allegations (people tend to take offense, you know). I would also strongly suggest that you move the articles back as the moves you performed are in violation of the discussion on the talk page (at least two users prefer the "1976 in television (Canada)" format (which, I emphasize again, is not utilizing subpages any more) over the "1976 in Canadian television"). Otherwise it would be me who is going to be bothered with your attitude and inattention to details.

I am sorry if this all sounds a bit harsh, but I tend to get irritated when people are not paying attention and refuse to admit it afterwards. If your attitude continues, I will be forced to move the test articles to my userspace in order to be able to work on them in peace and have you calmed down. If "Years in television" articles interest you, I would suggest that you adopt a more constructive attitude and start making project-related suggestions on the Talk:1976 in television/Temp page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Semantically a slash and a bracket do exactly the same thing. A subpage is not only one containing a slash in the title, a subpage is any page that creates a rigid hierarchy of articles. Your brackets cause exactly the same problem I have with the slashes. As I said putting television in the main title while relegating country to a note ignores that the country/television formation is just as valid. 1976 in Canada (television) is just as valid a heading for this content as 1976 in television (Canada). Using your title makes it seem as though the page could only ever be considered a subdivision of 1976 in television ignoring that it will also be a subdivision of 1976 in Canada.

Also please review WP:CSD. That you consider redirects to be "incongruous and useless" is not a speedy deletion criteria. RfD is not a complicated process and it is really unacceptable for someone who has been an admin for close to a year to be deleting pages without following procedure. - SimonP 15:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you wish to contest this on the basis of technicalities, so be it.

Semantically, the slash and a parenthesis are the same thing. However, this particular semantics issue is not covered by any of the WP policies or guidelines. While using parentheses is indeed typical of disambiguation pages, there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting using them for other purposes (to me, this is where "use common sense" comes into play). Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Subpages guideline defines subpages strictly as "pages separated with a "/" (a forward slash)" (note the parentheses are not mentioned at all). Then, this same guideline also states that "the only accepted use for subpages in the encyclopedia namespace is for making drafts of major article revisions", which puts your original move in direct violation of this particular guideline, as the the articles you had moved were meant as temporary draft versions (to your benefit, I will gladly accept that it was my mistake of not prominently labeling them as such).

Both "1976 in Canada (television)" and "1976 in television (Canada)" can indeed be used. I, however, do not see anything wrong with using one of them as a title, and the other one as a redirect. In the end, the version which is to the liking of more people will be used. As a matter of fact, the only reason why I moved "1976 in Canadian television" back to "1976 in television (Canada)" was because both Cburnett and myself liked this format better (no one else voiced an opinion), leaving you in the minority. Plus, you did not move all of the country pages out of the subpages space, so, to achieve consistency, I had to make moves one way or another.

Your Canada/television vs. Television/Canada suggestion, by the way, would have looked much better on the project's talk page, especially when presented positively. I strongly believe that editors working on this project are reasonable folks open to any constructive suggestions. If you think this "ambiguity" is a deficiency (I don't, because it can easily be resolved with a redirect), start a new section on project's deficiencies (hopefully with proposed solutions). Do not treat the article structure as set in stone just yet—the project is only days old, and I am sure there are still many issues neither you nor us have yet thought of.

As far as the deletion of redirects goes, this action of mine falls under #7 in the General section of WP:CSD. Furthermore, as a creator of these temporary pages, I have a right to declare that the pages were created in the main space in error and move them to my userspace. The remaining redirects will then be deleted as per #2 in the "Redirects" section. Previously deleted redirects will fall under the same criteria, although the rule will be applied retroactively (which, again, is not in violation of any policies).

I hope this addresses your concerns. I now very much regret that I've just wasted a whole morning contesting a very technical issue instead of actually working on "Years in television" project as I planned. While your desire to enforce policies is honorable, you still need time to get to know them better, and, above all, you need to assume good faith. If you took a little time to check my contributions and userpage, you'd see that "years in television" is one of the projects I've been working on for a long time, and, even if I made a mistake, it would not have been intentional. Simply pointing out to me what you think a mistake was (instead of hastily moving stuff around) would save us both a lot of time and nerves. Stubborness is not usually a good trait, neither in real life nor in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia tries to work by the spirit of the law not the letter. Perhaps the most important reason that Larry banned subpages is because of the enforced hierarchy concerns. See Wikipedia talk:Subpages pros and cons and Wikipedia talk:Do not use subpages. Majority opinion is not the way to decide these things. Your effort so far has essentially been a subproject of the years in television series and has only been advertised to those interested in that area. You have not noted that your efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland, years in South Africa, etc. projects. It is a pure coincidence that I, who have been involved in several of these projects, stumbled upon your pages.

Also CSD #7 does not apply here. The important word is mistake. You did not "create the redirect by mistake" you felt that someone else did. - SimonP 16:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was not me who started to stick to the letter of the policies instead of to their spirit. So far, your accusations have been based on very technical interpretations of the rules. All I did was to respond in a similar fashion.

Anyway, technicalities or not, you may or may not be right about CSD #7 (it all really depends on interpretation of "authorship" under GFDL provisions, especially when applied to redirects created due to a (unilateral) page move—I am not a lawyer, and I have absolutely no desire to dig into this even further than I already did). If you suggest sticking to the spirit of the policies, however, then, using common sense, leftovers of temporary/draft pages moves are perfect candidates for CSD.

In any case, I still reserve the right to move the project to my userspace and then apply CSD Redirects #2, rendering this point moot.

Speaking of me not having "noted that [my] efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland... etc. projects", how about (again!) going back to Talk:1976 in television/Temp#Why change?, and looking at the following sentence in the middle of the second paragraph: "Country-specific information is proposed to be moved to separate articles"? Whether you missed this line or not, it does not really matter; I am simply flabbergasted that you did not understand that I was using Canada just as an example, and that by default I meant the rest of the countries. What in the world did I do to earn such a distrust from you that you are willing to accuse me based on the most minor (and, as I deem them, obvious) omissions in my reasoning?

Finally, as far as your statements that "my effort so far has... been a subproject... advertised to those interested in that area" and that it was "a pure coincidence that you... stumbled upon [these] pages" go, I would like one more time to bring to your attention the fact that the project is less than a week old. I am sure there are some projects out there that started without you or me knowing about them. If one is to assume good faith, s/he would understand that the reason for not advertising the project was not to conceal it from public scrutiny, but rather to shape it, through the joint efforts of the interested editors, to a form which can then be presented to a broader audience without being accused of distraction of said audience's attention to review an unreadable, unstructured, and unformatted mess (which this project at this point of time is).

To summarize, I would suggest that you adopt the following course of action: move the pages back where they were this morning (an apology from you would have been nice, but I am not going to insist on it) and conduct the straw poll on the project talk page regarding the naming issue (let me remind you that the only reasons why the WP has policies is because the majority decided to have them). I, in turn, promise to apologize for any offenses I might have inadvertently given you in any of my communications above. This will hopefully result in us cooperatively working on the project, with respect to each other's opinions. So far, I am looking at 15 Kb of discussion on my talk page, and do not see how it can even remotely aid Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia. What I do know, is that instead of working on having a more or less shaped project by noon today, I have wasted my time on a pretty much pointless discussion over the interpretation of the rules (most of which do not even apply). Sue me if that's not the truth.

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Policies are not brought about by a majority, they are brought about by a consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In general decisions are made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule. Polls are generally only resorted to when other types of decision making have failed. See also m:Polls are evil. Wikipedia:Quickpolls have, in particular, been rejected for sometime. There has yet to be any real discussion of this issue much less an obvious failure of discussion. The first step is to try and convince each other and then perhaps list the page on requests for comment.

I'm not sure what you read my assertion that did not note that your efforts are just as applicable to the years in Canada, years in Ireland etc. What I meant by it was that you left messages at the pages of a number of users who participated in making the years in television pages, but left no messages for those who worked on the years in country pages. You are of course under no obligation to do such work, but it is a stretch to assume that any discussion resulting would only reflect one facet of the community. The project is only a week old and it is far to early to expect any kind of consensus, especially with only three people having contributed. There is no need to enforce any "majority opinion," because it is far to early for one to exist. I thus don't see any reason to move the pages back. They are causing no harm where they are now and if it is decided that the "year in country's television" format is better we would just have to move them back. - SimonP 17:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that I was under no obligation to notify people working on country pages. The real reasons, however, were not that I was too lazy to do so, but, first, because the project is more television- than country-oriented (so I wanted people interested mainly in television to take a first look), and, second, since I was not working on country pages, I would not know who was involved the most and who would take the greatest interest. If such information is available to you, by all means go ahead and let them know this project exists. The more people, the merrier.

As for consensus vs. majority, most of the times it is the same thing, except where significant compromises are made by both sides (yes, I would guess most of the existing policies were a result of compromises). I am very well aware of the quick polls controversies, but in this particular situation, the main article can really be under only one name (whatever that name is), so a quick poll would be a good idea, especially considering that it is not binding, but is only used as first approximation of how the things are going to look like in the end (it is very hard working on a project if its pages are moved back and forth). Furthermore, quoting you ("polls are generally only resorted to when other types of decision making have failed"), I would say that the current situation can be perfectly described as such. I understand that you moved the articles because you believed that they violate WP naming policy. I already told you why they do not, but I do not see you providing any other reasons why they should not be moved back to where Cburnett and me prefer to see them (at least for now). I like your RfC idea, but I do not think now is the best time to request one. I would rather have people comment on the whole idea/structure instead of a mundane issue of sub-articles names.

Looking back at your actions, the very least you could do was to notify the project participants that the move was going to be made (and why). The way you did it was (or, rather, was perceived as) very arrogant and impolite, and you did not do much to fix that when it was pointed out to you. I realize that you were probably just being bold, but this particular guideline is not very applicable when dealing with an active project that's still in its early testing stage (just because only three people commented on it is no excuse).

I will stop insisting that you move the articles back (since it is all temporary and to be decided upon, it really does not matter where they are now), but I would still suggest that you change the in-article references to bypass the redirects that appeared because of your moves. These redirects are currently nothing more than just yet another factor in an already complicated articles structure (and an unnecessary one at that); bypassing them would help the participants more easily focus on what's important. When all this is done, I hope the project will be back on track again.

If you wish (and if you are positively against any polls in any form), request an RfC on the names, but do it yourself as I am not going to distract the community's attention on such a minor issue, at least not at this time when the project still smells of raw meat.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces)

Maybe you can have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll take a better look at it tomorrow.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your comment. With some people I argue about upper/lower case. These people sometimes have no problem with translating into english. I pointed one to Ukraine and he was astonished that they did not use an english term. With the next I discuss Province of X vs. X Province. He has absolutly no problem with upper/lower case. But I think, upper/lower case is almost solved. ;-) But as always, I admit I do not know whether it is the best idea. I tried this mostly because of conformance and the benefits I see there. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:AdygeyaFlag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AdygeyaFlag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No objections. It was replaced with a larger version.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Come Dancing

I'm afraid I've forgotten now what my 1995 date source was... However, checking the page for the show on the official BBC website here, they too give the 1998 date, so it might perhaps be best to go with that. I'm pretty sure though as it said by BillyH on the talk page that regular series stopped in 1995 and subsequent editions to 1998 were specials.Angmering 10:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem. BillyH responded faster than I ever expected to get a response, and for now it should be sufficient. Still, thanks for looking into this for me.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thanks for supporting my nomination for adminship. Kelly Martin 16:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I believe you will be a great admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gargantuan task!

But since you're so good at working on the television articles, you might want to know I wrote Romper Room, which means it should be on the "television shows" list from 1953 to 1994. Mike H 17:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, more work! :) Well, for now, I will add it to just 1953 and 1994. I will be taking care of the years in between when I get to them. I did not get a chance to keep up with all the changes while I was gone and later when I returned, so there is quite a backlog to work through. I am going to start working on all years sequentially to convert them to the format proposed on 1976 in television/Temp anyway (now that's a Pantagruelian task! :)), and hopefully will take care of the said backlog at the same time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:22, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

For Ezhiki

Ладно, сдаюсь. Разблокируйте пожалуйста. А то Yahoo нас понизит :( Больше ссылок добавлять не буду. Виктор.

Здравствуйте, Виктор. Если откровенно, то большого желания вам помогать после всего того, что вы тут делали, у меня нет. Проблема, однако, не только в этом. Запись вашего сайта в глобальный спам-фильтр была сделана не мною (хотя и по моей просьбе); поскольку людей, имеющих к нему доступ, не так уж и много. Теоретически, я мог бы попросить ваш сайт из списка убрать (несмотря на то, что он только что был добавлен), но я не смогу вразумительно объяснить, почему это должно быть сделано, поскольку это будет логически противоречить моему предыдущему запросу.

В качестве утешения могу сказать только то, что на позиционирование вашего сайта в Yahoo, Google et al. включение его в глобальный спам-фильтр Википедии влиять не должно. В качестве предупреждения, бо вы пожелаете поменять хостинг и начать всё заново—всё повторится по тому же сценарию (revert, edit block, several reverts, global spam filter), но только в значительно ускоренном темпе.

Я лично ничего не имею против вашей компании как таковой (в конце концов, вы продаёте не виагру и не разнообразные удлиннители, а вполне полезный сервис), но ваши методы продвижения и раскрутки зачастую оставляют желать лучшего.

С уважением,

—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not finished, yet

You removed the show from the '74-'78 TV schedule. But, I am more confused right now, I also cannot find such a show on any TV network, who knows what time it would be on? Even I have been told and warned already before to not watch the show on television, as I already told you, many times, Ezhiki.

See also User:SimonP's messages above the title, "1976 in television pages".

Unhappy person - 4.160.xxx.xxx June 19 Sun

No answers? Come on, this is mostly true, what other television show could compare to the "bogus" disco cartoons. Were parents aware of "Disco Dog featuring Charlie?". Or else the situation I think turns out stupid.

Unhappy person (again)

My answer is what it has always been—there was never any show about "Charlie the Disco dog". When you are able to come up with some kind of proof showing otherwise, I will be glad to discuss this again. The way things are now, I consider the discussion closed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I will too quit from the discussion, You can share your messages to User:Jeff Schiller and User:BrianSmithson I am sure I corrected their names.

CE

That seems to be about what date notation to use when you need to use date notation. I'm removing it where there is no need for any notation, eg no-one calls this year 2005 CE, they call this year 2005. I'll move on to removing extraneous AD's next, though that might have to wait till tomorrow.

I do not see a problem with you removing the CE notation where it is truly unnecessary (such as in 2005 CE). Some of your removals, however, are not that clear-cut, e.g., 78 CE is actually useful.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

His claim is hard to believe; immediately after he said he was going to remove "extraneous AD's next", he went and put one in:[6] As well, he's been removing BCE as well, and in other pages with AD, he removes only BCE not AD e.g.[7] Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Subnational entity

RfyourC: I prefer old style, see Template talk:Subnational entity best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: (Could you translate vnutrigorodskoy in the terms table at Subdivisions of Russia?)

Done.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

But what is "Vnutri"? Additional the relation okrug=district, rayon=region does not work anymore. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vtutrigorodskoy literally means "inter-city", i.e., a district under the jurisdiction of the city. This is just Russian bureaucracy-speak. When it is translated as just "city district", no meaning is lost. Even in Russian, these districts are often referred to as just "gorodskiye rayony", that is, "city districts".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

funny :-) thanks. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA!  Grue  07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, and congratulations!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of deleting an erroneus anonymous vandalism to your talk page by user:4.161.5.254, he doesn't seem to really like you. Jtkiefer 03:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Of course I don't mind.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Toscanini was not a creator of the TV show, you went 26 years too early THAN 1974! The NBC Symphony never performed disco music in 1948, you got the wrong dates on the music, and false information on Toscanini.

See Talk:1948 in television.

I was being sarcastic, is all. If that was too offensive, I apologize.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) June 28, 2005 12:36 (UTC)

For Ezhiki

Уважаемые Ежики,

Мы создали новый сайт о Екатеринбурге и будем всемерно его развивать. Пожалуйста гляньте www.e-burg.biz и сообщите не будете ли Вы возражать против того, чтобы поставить на него ссылочку в секции Екатеринбург. С уважением, Виктор.

Здравствуйте, Виктор!

В том виде, в котором сайт находится сейчас (без явной рекламы), у меня никаких возражений нет. Если у других пользователей/администраторов будут претензии, я уверен, что они вам сообщат.

Хочу только предупредить насчёт фотографий. Если вы планируете размещать их в Википедии, то прошу обратить внимание, что они должны быть размещены либо по лицензии GFDL, либо выпущены в public domain. В этом случае копирайт сайта на фотографии будет выглядеть довольно неуместно. Это, однако, касается только тех фотографий, которые будут размещены в Википедии напрямую. Если все фотографии останутся на вашем сайте, то, разумеется, выбор лицензии и способ их оформления для Википедии иметь значения не будет.

Если у вас будут дальнейшие вопросы, спрашивайте.

С уважением,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dagestan

Ok I changed it back. ---Hottentot

Thanks for changing it back, but I can't help but be curious if "divisions" sounds better than "division" to an English-speaking person. To me, it really makes no difference, but then, English is my second language. The reason I am asking is because this is not the first time someone tried to change it to "divisions".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Divisions" does sound better to a native-English speaking person like me.

This is what is used in articles such as in United_States#Political_divisions, France#Administrative_divisions, Hungary#Administrative_divisions, People's Republic of China#Political_divisions, etc. Divisions is plural, meaning that there is more than one, while division is singular. ---Hottentot

OK. Like I said, I have no problem with you changing it to plural, as long as all instances are changed. I am just too lazy to do it myself, is all :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I have changed all instances to divisions. Please in the future make sure you use plural for that word. Thanks. --User:Hottentot

Thanks for taking care of that. I'll move the History of the administrative divisions of Russia back to the singular version (because this one is the only one that speaks of the whole system of the administrative division; not just gives a list), but the rest of them are good.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) June 28, 2005 12:36 (UTC)

Flag of Khakassia

Hey Ezhiki,

I noticed that you uploaded an image of the flag of Khakassia for the page Administrative divisions of Khakassia, which you got from the Estornian Wikipedia. However, FOTW seems to have a different version of the flag: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru-kk.html Their version looks like the order is white-blue-red while your version is blue-white-red. Also the article on Khakassia is the only Russian Republic that has no infobox. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Hottentot

Khakassia is listed next in the Russian federal subjects WikiProject to-do list. I will re-write the article (and check which flag is correct) as time permits some time in future. Of course, if you wish to work on that article yourself, you are more than welcome to do so.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) June 28, 2005 18:17 (UTC)

Sorry to hear your news

I've just read your announcement on your user page, and I just wanted to send you my best wishes and say I hope things go well for you in whatever's happening in the real world. You're one of Wikipedia's truly great contributors, no doubt about that. It's a crying shame you won't be able to contribute as much, and I hope that we will get to see you back full-time some day! But obviously the real world is rather more important, and once again, you have all my best wishes. Well done for all the terrific work you do here, and I shall endeavour to help continue the valuable input you've had into the "Years in television" pages. Take care. Angmering 1 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Paul. On the bright side, I see that you are back to fully active, so at least the television series (one of the things I care about) are not going to wither. I'll still be around, pretty much daily, but the total time committment I will be able afford will be much, much less. Anyway, I hope, too, that some time I'll be able to return to active editing again. See you around; it is truly a pleasure to work with you!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 1, 2005 12:24 (UTC)

Let me also express my appreciation about the work you did to describe Russian federal subjects and other topics related to Russia. It's a pity that you cannot continue to do it anymore, but I really hope that you will be able to return to this activity. Unfortunately nobody else can (or may be want) to do it as well as you did. In past we have some points of disagreement with you but even when we had different opinions I have very strong respect for you, and for me your work was always an example of work of very high quality and I often was jealous how good your articles are here and how many things you could do in Russian part but you had no time for it. Indeed I still hope that at some time in future it will become more interesting for you to participate in ru. Thank you for your contributions, they are really very important for all the Wikipedia project. I wish you good luck and I'm sure that you will be successful in any part of real life because of your intellect and persistence. With friendly wishes, MaxiMaxiMax 1 July 2005 15:09 (UTC).

Thank you very much for the compliments, Max; I am very flattered. You might be equally pleased to know that I had a lot of respect for you as well—the amount of time you are able (and willing) to invest into Wikipedia is truly amazing. I remember the pitiful condition of ru-Wikipedia when I just started, and look at it now! I am pretty sure that if it was not for you, the Russian Wikipedia would still be at the bottom of the language list (both in terms of quantity and quality). You gave the people the sense of direction and motivation, and that is not something anyone can do.

As I am not leaving completely, I am quite sure we'll bump into each other at one point of time or another in the future. Hopefully it will be another disagreement that we will be able to work out to our mutual (and Wikipedia's) benefit :). Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 2, 2005 02:50 (UTC)

Hope everything is okay over there. I'm sure your energy and good humour will be as good a contribution elsewhere, as it's been at Wikipedia. Regards, Michael Z. 2005-07-2 06:43 Z

Thank you, Michael. I appreciate your moral support a lot. And, hey, please accept my congratulations—you are now an admin!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 3, 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Because I first read this section of your talk page, I thought, what's going on, what happend to Ezhiki? But now after reading your statement it says nothing bad. So I hope everything is fine with you and the partial leave is not because of something too bad in your real live. I liked your comments on the subnational entity stuff and especially the work on translation table for Russian federal subjects. Best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 2 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Thank you, Tobias. I am indeed fine. Nothing bad happened, only good things; but as there can never be too many of those, my Wikipedia time had to be sacrificed. I wish I could sacrifice something else, but, alas, that was not an option. Anyway, I'll be around, so if you need me for anything, just ask. I probably will not reply very promptly, but I'll provide my comments eventually :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 3, 2005 04:19 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki. I entirely agree with the comments above. WP will miss your time spent elsewhere but other things/people would be glad to get this time of yours.

I remember well that it was you, who sent me the first words of encouragement when I created one of my first articles (Stepan Makarov). I am sure I will still see you around. Cheers, -Irpen July 4, 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Thank you, Irpen. Keep up the good work.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 5, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

Древняя история

Привет! У раждого региона России есть еще и древняя и средневековая история, особенно если это республика. И у каждой страницы о регионе есть свой раздел истории. И в каждой энциклопедии (желательно советской) есть краткое содержание истории, в том числе и древней. М.б. есть смысл просмотреть хотя бы по Кавказу и Поволжью, Южной Сибири. Лично я в скором времени буду переводить на английский tt:Tatarstan taríxı. И заранее прошу поддержки :)

И о современной истории. Чувашия - не Хакасия. Автономной областью она была только на заре Сов.власти. Потом быстро стала республикой. Где-то в тридцатые, вместе с марийцами. :)) --Untifler 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

зы, По адм.делению России: был ведь когда-то и tt:Kanton.

Здравствуйте, Untifler! С помощью, к сожалению, у меня сейчас плохо — на Википедию практически нет времени и неизвестно когда будет и будет ли вообще в обозримом будущем. Поэтому я хоть и появляюсь каждый день, но не больше чем минут на 15-20, и всё, что за это время успеваю сделать — это небольшой cleanup и RC patrol, да и то если не отвлекусь на чтение каких-нибудь дебатов.

Что касается Чувашии, то действительно, автономной областью (трудовой коммуной) она была только с 1920 по 1925 год, и статья про это умалчивает; в основном потому, что до Чувашии в рамках проекта по федеральным субъектам я так и не добрался. Про это я в статью чуть-чуть добавил.

Ну и насчёт кантонов — до них я не добрался, поскольку при работе над историей административно-территориального деления России застрял на середине 18-го века, когда их ещё не было.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 6, 2005 12:27 (UTC)

Вот ещё какая просьба есть, как к администратору. Я так понял, что и английская вика перешла на юникод. Но естественно никто из англофонов и понятия не имеет как правильно вводить все эти значки - ну разве что умляуты и акуты... Неплохо бы было создать такой шаблон в начале таких страниц, который бы предупреждал что именно надо вводит английскими буквами в строку браузера, чтобы в следующий раз выйти на эту страницу. Т.е. шаблон-то я сделать могу, а как грамотно по-английски написать на нём.. :)

Ну например: {{engchar|Ghabdulla Tuqay}} занести на самое начало страницы Ğabdulla Tuqay. И появится типа: Article's name contains UNICODE characters. For visiting this article you should type Ghabdulla Tuqay in your browser. --Untifler 7 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

Мысль в принципе интересная, но я думаю, что проблема решается проще — надо просто убедиться, что на подобные статьи имеются редиректы с вариантов без диакритики. Понято, что вариант без диакритики скорее всего будет грамматически/орфографически неверным, но я уверен, что попробовать такой вариант будет первой мыслью пользователя, сомневающегося в том, как ввести имя правильно. Для вашего примера редиректом будет Gabdulla Tuqay. Если вариант без диакритики получится многозначным (например, до ca редуцируются ĉa и cà), то редуцированный вариант может вести на disambig-страницу со всеми возможными вариантами. Разумеется, как обычно, все "легальные" способы избавиться от диакритики (в вашем примере — Ghabdulla) должны быть также указаны собственно в статье в качестве альтернативного спеллинга.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) July 7, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Страницы об Осетии

Уважаемые ежики!

Страницы об Осетии содержат не просто неверную информацию, как только речь заходит об ингушах, но и прямо анти-осетинскую. Причем это на многих станица выражено не просто в конкретных цифрах, но и передергиванием событий. Этим меня пугает ваша рьяная настойчивость по восстановлению неверной информации. Если вы считаете что тот, кто прав должен оправдываться могу здесь изложить все, так как оно есть и дать ссылки на ресурсы в сети! Если же конечно ежики не анти-российские...

Здравствуйте, уважаемый анонимный участник!

Возврат мною статей о Северной Осетии к изначальному состоянию не имеет ничего общего с "передёргиванием событий" и моей "анти-российскостью". Откровенно говоря, моя компетенция в данном вопросе совершенно недостаточна, чтобы решить, является ли информация в данных статьях верной, подтасованной, или попросту ложной. Попробуйте, однако, представить, как это выглядит с моей стороны: статьи, находящаяся в довольно стабильном состоянии в течение довольно продолжительного времени (вы — первый человек, недовольный их содержанием), вдруг без связного объяснения редактируется анонимным пользователем, который попросту удаляет куски текста. Первая реакция на это любого википедиста — это то, что удаление информации является вандализмом. Разумеется, мой долг как администратора восстановить status quo, и именно поэтому ваши правки я откатил назад. В большинстве случаев на этом всё заканчивается.

Однако поскольку вы дали мне знать, что ваши действия были мною (неправильно) определены как вандализм, ситуация совершенно меняется. Опять же, я не могу с вами спорить касательно того, как наиболее верно описать события (я не так много о них знаю и, если честно, интересуюсь), поэтому я продолжу дискуссию на страницах, которые вы пытались редактировать (и буду признателен, если вы её поддержите, и желательно на английском, поскольку эта часть Википедии всё-таки английская, а не русская), и попробую дать вам несколько советов по поводу того, как такие вопросы в Википедии решаются (и поверьте мне, это не первый случай, когда люди спорят по поводу интерпретации событий, в которых задействованы национальные вопросы).

С уважением,

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)Ezhiki

Russian federal subjects

Hi Ezhiki,

Thanks for your message. Standing Wikipedia policy is to include the indigenous name first, regardless of what country it belongs to. For this reason, Tibetan Autonomous Region, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, and other divisions of China are labelled with the native name first, even though Chinese is the language of the People's Republic. --Node 03:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As it is probably obvious, I have not been much involved with policy-related issues recently. For that reason, would you mind referring me directly to the policy you are quoting? In the past, the naming of the Russian federal subjects was per Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects guidelines, which prescribe putting Russian name first, with the rest of the languages following it (to me, it still makes perfect sense). Is the "indigenous name policy" a fairly recent one? I do not recall ever seeing it before or quoted it to me. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I was wrong. It's not an explicit policy, however it is followed in a majority of cases: Basque, Catalan, Valencian, Galician, Inner Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, etc. placenames. It is on this basis that I revert -- the language of the locality should always come first, followed by the language of the nation. Similarly, we don't say "Russian federal subject, that is what Bashkortostan is", but rather "Bashkortostan is a Russian federal subject" -- the local first, the national second. --Node 04:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I used "Russian first, local later" rule for the Russian federal subjects when working on the above WikiProject was because the other way created problems in some cases. Take Dagestan, for example. According to the most recent census (2002), over 30 languages are commonly spoken in the republic. Listing all of them in the intro line would be highly impractical, no matter in what order you do it (note that I am talking about the intro line alone; listing them elswhere in the body of the article, or even in a separate article, would probably be fine). Hence, only official languages are listed. The problem is, the only official language in Dagestan is Russian, so the indigenous languages are not even covered.

Now, Dagestan is fairly non-typical. All other Russian republics have at least one other official language in addition to Russian. But then again, there are plenty of groups in, say, Ingushetia, to justify including not only the Russian and Ingush (which are official) languages, but other languages as well. Listing Ingush first may probably be more offensive to the non-Ingush population than listing Russian, which they may prefer (as lingua franca when it is not practical or possible to utilize their own language).

Looking outside of Russia, we have the Ukrainian republic of Crimea. While it may be argued by some, but the indigenous population there is Crimean Tatars, who speak the Crimean Tatar language. However, that language not official in the Crimea (Ukrainian and Russian are).

To wrap it up, my point is that there are probably cases when listing indigenous language first makes good sense (I am not knowledgeable enough to judge if that's the case with the Chinese divisions you mentioned, though), but Russian republics are definitely not a good fit for that practice. Even though in some cases putting native language first would be better (such as in cases of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan), Russian is listed first for the sake of consistency. I hope you understand what I mean. Thanks for taking time to explain your position to me.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is a strange excuse. Find me a single person who finds it offensive that the largest indigenous language is listed first -- I don't think it would offend, say, a Chechen in Ingushetia, after all, Chechen is not official. What about the Ukrainians of Ingushetia?? Would they be offended? I'm only referring to those Russian federal subjects which have official languages other than Russian, with the possible addition of the Karachay-Cherkassian Republic (Karachay and Circassians form 2/3rds of the population of the republic, yet their languages are for some reason not official) and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (I don't think Yiddish is official anymore, but it has historical significance). Cases like Dagestan where things are very choppy and there is no official language besides Russian can be left alone. --Node 15:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding languages the way you described can certainly be done, but the inconsistency of this approach simply breaks my heart. "Russian first, native later" approach looks very clean and logical, and there is nothing preventing anybody from listing the names in the rest of the languages used on the territory of the subject (if any) and the languages of historical significance in the body of the article.

As for the offensive part, I probably was not very clear here. If the largest indigenous language is listed first, it may be fine (if you care not about consistency) as long as it is indeed the largest. Now, in several republics Russian is actually spoken by more people than the native language (even if both are official)—Udmurtia and Buryatia are good examples. In some republics, like Dagestan, there is no "largest" native language, so Russian is used. And so on and so forth.

The purpose of my approach is maintaining consistency, so nobody needs to fight which language is listed first in each and every case. What is the purpose of your approach, if I may be so curious? According to the logic you outlined so far, the names of the U.S. states should be given in the languages of Indian tribes that live there, followed by English (neither Indian languages nor English are official, but they are all of historical significance)—would you follow this rule in a non-English Wikipedia if there was a guideline similar to one you are using? Am I missing something?

So for being so crabby, but I tend to be that way when I do not understand what people have in mind when making certain adjustments. If you could clarify that for me, it would be much appreciated. Rest assured, I have nothing against you personally, only against your logic :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think inconsistency is a problem. The purpose of my approach is that the name of the indigenous people be listed first, but only to such a degree that it is logical (Dagestan would be difficult, for example). In most of these cases, the indigenous language(s) was the language of the majority a few decades ago, and changed only recently due to Soviet portrayal of outlying lands in a frontierland way to encourage Russians to move there to cement Russia's claim to the areas. In some of these cases, the trend is actually reversing, although this is not true for many of them.

The tactic of comparing something in your homeland to something in my homeland won't work in your favour here, as I argued a long time ago at Tucson, Arizona that the indigenous name should be placed in the first line even though it's not official. My placements in the first line for other Native American names still stand for most Arizona and New Mexico placenames. It's also worth noting that many of the official languages of Russian federal subjects are spoken by millions of people, while no Native American language (at least not in the US) is spoken by more than 500000 people.--Node 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Node! When you say that you think inconsistency is not a problem, you do not think you'd immediately win me over? :) You see, I think this is going to be a major problem, which leaves our discussion moving nowhere. Consistency is actually the reason why we are having this discussion in the first place.

The problem I have with your approach is that you would have to decide, what degree is "logical", and define exceptions. Now, imagine that we do the things your way without any reservations. What would happen if tomorrow a crazy nationalist from Dagestan comes to Wikipedia, sees Yiddish spelling in the JAO article, and adds a name of Dagestan to the Dagestan article in his own language (maybe even with the good intentions). Considering Wikipedia's rate of growth, it is only a matter of time when this happens. Would you be willing to tell that person that only official languages and languages of historical significance are indicated in the articles? If yes, how would you justify that his language is not of historical significance? If not, what will you do with the representatives of other Dagestani people, each willing to add the name of the republic in his or her native language? See, that's the main reason why Dagestan does not even have an official language besides Russian—it is so hard to achieve consensus, and they are really not the only complicated case. Most of Russian Caucasus republics have dozens of languages used on their territories, and most of these languages are not official elswhere.

The Native American languages example you used (and I am terrified to hear that you actually insisted that they are listed on the first line in some cases, but that's a whole different story I am not going to get concerned with) is also dubious. One has to actually decide what the threshold for including a language is. Is 500K to be the dividing point for inclusion? 1 million? 5 million? Who decides what the borderline is? What happens if there is a consensus on a number (unlikely story), but there is a case with less than 1% deviation? Would it be included/excluded as an exception? My answer would be why even care about such intricacies, when a simple compromise rule can be worked out to cover all cases more or less effectively.

Anyway, since I am not married to the "Russian first, the rest later" rule, I can agree on a compromise, as long as it does not involve having to make arbitrary judgements and to introduce artificial rules, and is more or less logical. How about this:

1. Only names in official languages are listed.
2. The languages are sorted in order of the population percentage that speak them (these percentages are among the base indicators of the 2002 Census data, available online).

In this case native language will be listed first for republics with large indigenous population, and Russian will be listed first for republics where such population is not as large.

To counter your argument about reversing trends—Wikipedia is a tool of descriptive nature. In cases when the trend reverses enough to put the Russian language into minority, the language order can be changed when it happens (a logic used in the "Kiev vs. Kyiv" spelling—see Talk:Kiev—which, to me, makes perfect sense).

This system, of course, is far from being as simple as the "Russian first" one, but at least it is not ambiguous, leaves some waggling room, and does not require considering (and, at times, fighting over) each case separately. Let me know what you think.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your support. --Briangotts (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Pitchka

Hi there, Ёжики! I saw your correspondence with User:Pitchka and just wanted to tell you that I told him about Ptichka and everything. I also told him that pichka means p*ssy in Serbian. He believed me but didn't change his name :). Feel free to delete this comment of mine, I just wrote it for the hell of it :). C ya at the Portal! KNewman 02:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's one bad way to misspell a name. I hope he'll consider changing it, eventually. Apparently, you and me are not going to be last to bring this to his attention.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

My user name Pitchka!

Hi Ezhiki, I have heard some awful things about my user name already! I chose it from a website I was reading about a Russian Spacecraft and they said it meant Little Bird. I just liked that sound of it. Since then, I have seen it spelled Ptichka like you mentioned and I have heard that the way I spell it could mean something dirty. So I kind of wish now that I wasn't so "smart" and just picked some user name that I understood what it meant! Dwain 02:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to be offensive. Just to let you know, you may put up a request for user name change, if you want. You can find all about it here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Revert of edit

Hi,

Please can you take a look at Talk:Dalnegorsk? Bobblewik 08:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I replied on that page.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image:AdygeyaFlag.jpeg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:AdygeyaFlag.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Mafia

Congratulations on your new appointment. I've been thinking of investing in the natural gas industry; can you help me out? —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 17:02 Z

Nah, Michael, I am not into that. I merely supervise Mafia operations here in the US. But hey, I can probably get you in touch with right people... for a price, of course :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Arab subdivision

is placed for deletion. I thought of making series of the stuff. Also for russion subdivisions. We have Template:Subnational entity but lots of terms will never enter there because they are to specific. These templates easily bind together articles that belong together. For arab there are currently only four but nevertheless the template helps. The delete-promoter also wants to merge muhafazah into governorates and finally delete it. But on guberniya we decided to have it seperate. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I cast my vote to keep the template.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

:-) . and i found a new (fifth) arab subdivision. qadaa or something lke that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhafazah Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Thanks for contating me. This is more about formatting than linkage. For example this is how Administrative divisions of Russia in 1713-1714 looks to someone with their date preferences set to number-month-year.

• 19 May (May 8 in the Julian calendar), 1713 - the capital of Russia was moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg.
• 28 July(17), 19 May 1713 - Riga Governorate was formed on the recently acquired lands in the north-west of Russia.
• July 28(17), 1713 - Smolensk Governorate was abolished; its territory was divided between Moscow and Riga Governorates.

I would probably go for somthing like this.

• May 19 1713 (May 8, Julian calendar), the capital of Russia moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg.
• July 28 1713 (July 17, Julian):
  • Riga Governorate formed on the recently acquired lands in the north-west of Russia.
  • Smolensk Governorate abolished; its territory divided between Moscow and Riga Governorates.

I brought the years next to the dates for people who have their prefernces set to ISO date format, and also to avoid interrupting the flow of the date. I've moved the Russia link to the first occurance, and removed some bolding. I've also removed the word "was" but that's stylistic choice.

Meanwhile in the real article I've linked the second "July 28", for the moment, the rest I leave to you. I will try to avoid these articles for now, but I suspect I've done most of them.

In the longer term I may look at getting a slightly different markup for dates.

Regards,

Rich Farmbrough 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you must get really tired explaining the same thing over and over again, to each and every person having a question, considering the magnitude of the changes. Anyway, thank you for explaining the bigger picture. Even though I have little to no compassion to people who want to see the dates in the "28 July" format, I understand poor suckers cannot live the other way around, so having a choice is a must :)

I am still, however, a little confused about duplicate dates. The admin division articles only have a few, but I can imagine some articles would get tons of identical date references. Linking them all to achieve the desired formatting effect overloads the page with redundant links, while not linking them leads to inconsistency of date display. Do you have a solution for this problem? No need to go into fine details; if this question had already been asked, I'd appreciate if you could just point me to the right discussion thread.

Same would probably apply to Julian/Gregorian dates—linking both of them is not really the right thing to do (because they both map to only one real-life day), but, as you mentioned, not linking them may break the formatting.

Again, thank you for taking time to write a detailed explanation. I am a date-linking freak myself :), but the issues above leave me somewhat concerned. Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in an ideal world dates should only really be blue and underlined if they are strictly important. That's what I meant about a diffenet markup. I've been thinkng something like <<September 23 1999>> or <<13 September>> etc. The possibilty also exists to put functionality to deal with OS dates, japanese dates, Jewish/Muslim dates etc. Ideally it would be extended to things like <<Cretaceous>> and <<11:15 pm UTC>>. The date linking project is about 80%+ complete I reckon (altough new ones will occur), and I've had probably only 20 enquiries, in every shade of politeness! One of the intersting things is it takes me to bakwaters of the 'pedia where I've found almost every solecism possible, which is useful for planning other cleanup projects. They will not be manual though! (If they happen at all.) Rich Farmbrough 12:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Are the developers considering the new markup for that purpose yet, or is it more of a wish-list item?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Don't you have better arguments instead of using "brutal force"? Please take part in the discussion Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements#Announcements. See also Talk:Chernihiv. --AndriyK 13:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Having read the discussion threads recently, I found myself in a position of having nothing to add. I wholeheartedly agree with the arguments provided by others and am not willing to repeat the same things, which have already been told numerous times. On the other hand, I do not regard comments/sources provided by you as accurate, nor do I see your objections as (pardon the pun) objective.

With all that in mind, however, I do not approve of certain personal remarks against you (nor will I tolerate personal offenses by you, should you for some reason desire to employ such tactics in future).

Please, remember that the only way to "win" a revert war such as this one is to stop reverting and instead barrage "the enemy" (if you wish to see us in that light) with the facts and quotes from credible sources, preferrably in a neatly organized manner. Until this happens, I am going to stick to technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies (such as 3RR).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK

Hi, Ghirlandajo. While I understand your frustration with this user, could you please refrain from making remarks such as this one in future? Not only does this violate Wikipedia policy, it also is not going to win you any points if this user is to be dealt with efficiently.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that the comment was too much on my part, please consider the list of Andriy's contributions for today. When you edit a page for the first time and introduce a completely new edit there, how can you call it "reverting"? --Ghirlandajo 14:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely. I myself had been in a position when it was difficult to restrain myself, and I could have said something I would later regret. Still, no matter how hard it is, it is preferrable that we keep our cool at all times. Calling each other names (even when it seems that the other side deserves it) will not achieve anything and is likely just to aggravate the other side, instead of cooperating. But I am sure you already know that.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Privet, this is an ongoing nightmare. Good for you that you were not listed on Russian mafia yet. Have you seen the thread at Maidan? Actually, most people at that site are sensible folks and his rant brought little silly action and a couple of reasonable responces. What's really scary, is that he started to move articles. It takes more time to undo, than revert changes. See User_talk:Mzajac#Page_moves. Michael asked for the log and I prepared one for him. Thanks, we do need to tackle the threat and in what I agree with you, we should remain civilized people even when talking to fanatics. I would like to personally thank you for your help again. Please check your inbox, there is another thank you there. Cheers, --Irpen 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I just thought to post you a link to User_talk:Robchurch#3RR in case you missed this discussion. --Irpen 18:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian Far East

I realize that -- see Talk:Far Eastern Federal District for my view; however, as I say there, I would have discussed with you first, had I noted that you had this discussion before; I stand by my view, but I'll leave it alone now. regards, Baad 18:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Far Eastern Federal District.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian Time Zones

Hi, You can find source of Russian Time Zones on the [8]. In the future please contact me at me Polish WP talk page as I hardly ever visit the English section. Cheers --PawełMM 07:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That one is recent and accurate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Union

I was the one who uploaded the original version of the text before her modifications, actually. Her edits struck me as changes in language and style, not factual content. So I did not see reason to revert them entirely at the time. For example, the term "mlitary" preceding "occupation" was not a necessary qualifier because the usage of the term "occupation" itself is going to imply a military presence. 172 | Talk 00:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Upon taking another look I see that some information was removed. The content removed, which, again I was initially responsible for uploading, was admittedly somewhat POV in the sense that it was not attributing assertions that are not universally accepted and in its word choice. So a partial revert was in order. 172 | Talk 00:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Do you now intend to restore the facts that had been removed?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

I think there is quite a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names and its talk. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Wikipedia policy and, if implemented, it would also help to keep certain behaviours of certain users at bay if you know what I mean. Your imput is welcome of course. --Irpen 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the friendly greeting

I took your advice and checked the Remember Me box. I haven't been logged off since. Thank you! --CKA3KA (Skazka) 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Glad to be of assistance.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Adjective vs country-name

maybe vote on: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10#Category:French_naval_ships_and_sub-categories Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am really bad with categories and do not know how similar problems with other categories had been resolved. The truth is, I am not touching anything related to categories unless I am absolutely sure about what I am doing... which is usually never.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism

Hi there. I noticed your recent comment at my RfA. I'm not complaining, it's always good to learn something new, but... could you please elaborate a bit why do you consider me a nationalist? It's kind of strange, especially that I'm somewhere between liberal and socialist in my beliefs and I'm all for EU, which is what most Polish nationalists hate... Halibutt 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean you are a nationalist in a modern sense, but, to me, you did exhibit nationalistic tendencies in Wikipedia when dealing with historical interpretations. The comment of mine was triggered by the discussions at Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920) and Talk:Battle of Wołodarka (I can probably dig up more, but these two are quite illustrative, I think). Perhaps this would not be so obvious to other voters, and perhaps most of them would not give it as much weight as I did, but to me it is a big deal, so, sorry, I cannot support you. I do, however, believe, that in other regards you would make a decent admin—the breadth and depth of your contributions speak for themselves. With all that in mind, good luck in your RfA.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not bother you in order to make you change your mind, I'm simply curious. And your comment did not explain much to me as I fail to understand how come a discussion about sources or lack of sources can have anything to do with nationalism. Was there anything in particular I said that made you think that? Or was it some sort of general conclusion after I failed to believe in Irpen's beliefs when compared to my sources? Could you explain that? Halibutt 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The sort of conclusions you drew from the sources provided did not really seem obvious or logical. Granted, those particular sources could have been interpreted in more than one way, but you chose one that presents information in a more controversial (and indicative of nationalism) way. To me, this is a somewhat distrurbing sign.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments. But I think that we are all guilty of this fallacy - being somewhat POVed towards some nationalities (countries we were born and/or live), and views (political and others). Halibutt has always struck me as the person who is able to recognize this bias in his writings, and worked with editors representing other POV towards reaching the NPOV. If this is not enough, that I think most of our administrators should resign - I certainly should. PS. It should be interesting to see how User:Irpen votes on this nomination, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not deny Halibutt's virtues (and he has plenty). But to me an ability to restrain one's POV is far more important in an admin than simply having a courage to recognize and admit it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly why I decided to stick to sources, when apparently we couldn't reach a compromise with Irpen on other grounds. It's the easiest way to solve merithorical conflicts and, frankly speaking, I can't think of a better way to solve them. As to the sources provided at the discussion on battle of Wołodarka, one explicitly stated that it was a Polish victory and from the other it was obvious, and not only to me, but also to other editors who took part in the discussion.

By the way I still fail to see what made you think that I'm a nationalist. If sticking to sources is nationalism, then I should reconsider my views on that idea. The reason I'm asking is that in where I live nationalist is rather an offensive term. Thanks for your comments, though I admit they would be much more helpful (to me personally) if you could explain that thing to me with some examples, and not with feelings you had while reading the discussion. Halibutt 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As Irpen noted below and you—above, "nationalist" is a rather offensive term—it indeed sounds not much better than a "skinhead". I should have probably tried to find a better word (although I did not realy call you a nationalist, but only "having nationalistic tendencies", which I think is not the same). Perhaps "somewhat overzealous patriot" would fit the bill better? As for my being vague—that's only because I was providing my comments based on the residual impressions of the above-mentioned discussions (which I reviewed a while ago). I can probably point you to specific paragraphs if I re-read the whole thing, but I think Irpen below summarized my (and his) feelings pretty much in the same way I would have. All in all, my personal admin standards (which, admittedly, are below than those of an average Wikipedian) have not been met in this particular area, which is why I opposed. Hopefully this helps.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezhiki, sorry if you mind a lengthy discussion on the side topic overloading your talk page, but I feel like responding here to keep things in the context. First of all, to Piotrus, I am flattered that you are interested in seeing how I will vote. I haven't voted yet, not because I didn't notice the RfA but because I need a little time to think about it.

To my past argument with Halibutt, I repeat that it was not about sources but about interpretations of the sources. The only source that claimed the same outcome as what Halibutt was insisting upon cannot be taken at face value, as I explained at the talk and I don't want to go over this again. That the outcome from the other source is "obvious" is not obvious to me and I stated clearly why. I offered to cross-check with a book on the war by a respected scholar (Davies) and no one got back to me with any response on what Davies is saying (I don't have this book). The issue was decided by a vote and the inconclusive vote outcome was enforced and I was too exhausted to continue.

3:1 vote result is a statistically insignificant advantage, it is not 30:10 or 300:100. With a single more oppose vote (which is well within a statistical fluctuation of such vote) the result 3:2 would have been meaningless.

I did not insist on my outcome. I wanted to any outcome with a small "disputed" note inviting readers to read talk and see an unresolved disagreement. Perhaps they would have expressed themselves too and we would have determined the consensus. Because the topic is rather obscure, it would probably take some time, so what? What's the damage? I was thwarted by persistent removal of a harmless small tag near the outcome result (I did not insist on the global POV tag on the article) and the article was finally locked. The argument got rude too at times, and, as one can see, not from my side.

I do believe that Halibutt, despite being short tempered, is a good natured and ethical person. I also think that he is committed to neutrality but his views are too much affected by his love to his homeland and the biased historical scholarship and he cannot overcome that. Since "patriotism" is a softer word than nationalism, let's call it such, a patriotism. This results in a bunch of biased articles that seem like either glorious Polish victories or the massacres of the innocent Poles by evil barbarians. Battle of Orsha with the huge Russian army size, supposedly, still neatly beaten by a 3 times smaller Polish army, Massacre of Praga created under this inflammatory name (I moved that some time ago), insistent refusal to admit a Polish defeat even at Kiev Offensive, grudgingly admitted afterwards, are the examples.

However, my view is that two most important virtues for an admin is personal ethics and commitment to the project. I think Halibutt scores high at both. It is also my view, that for such a huge project, the rule should be the more admins, the better since there is much admin work all the time. Therefore, I will NOT "oppose" at his RfA. Whether I should vote "support" or abstain from voting due to the reservations I have, I still need to decide. I hope I explained myself to everyone's satisfaction. --Irpen 22:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem with having a discussion here, and thanks for the nice summary which, if you don't mind, I "borrowed" when providing a comment above, because it sums up my point exactly.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perm Krai

Hi, I was wondering if you knew what the deal is with Perm Krai. Because, according to what I have observed, Perm Oblast is primarily Russian, while Permyakia is inhabited mostly by Komi-Permyaks. Why did the government merge the two? --Hottentot 04:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the reality in Russia that some of the federal subjects are donors (they contribute a bulk of money in taxes to the federal budget), and some are dotational. One of the Putin's initiatives is the enlargement of the federal subjects (with introduction of the federal districts being an interim step into that direction), to even out the cash flows. However, note that the government cannot mandate mergers, because it would violate the constitutional principles of the local self-government. Whatever mergers are proposed, they have to be voted by the residents of the federal entities subject to mergers. Perm Krai is the first result of this politics. Of ~60% showing up to vote, over 80% agreed to the merger. Let me know if you have further questions.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 06:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. But wait, Permyakia and Perm Oblast both agreed to merge, for what reason? I can see why Putin would want to do this, but why would the people of Permyakia and Perm Oblast agree? --Hottentot 07:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Permyakia and Perm Oblast have established economic ties and a lot of common infrastructure—that's one of the main reasons. Also, Permyakia is heavily dotational, relying on the federal transfers to form a significant portion of its budget. Problem is, federal government is not always good with transferring funds timely, which, as you imagine, creates all sorts of issues. Perm Oblast, on the other hand, is a donor, and once both budgets are merged, it will ease the pain somewhat (but note that during 2006 there will still be two separate budgets, so there will be a transitional period). Another thing—Permyakia will still have a special status within new Perm Krai. The main scoop is that Permyakia will no longer need to rely on federal government's transfers (but will, of course, become dependent of Perm Krai's budget), and Perm Oblast will gain access to Permyakia's resources. The merger also lowers administrative costs—instead of two local governments there will only be one. Considering that Russians and Komi-Permyaks co-existed peacefully for quite some time, there is something in this merger for both parties.

In 2003, a poll of 309 people was conducted among the population of both oblast and autonomous district. The most common pro-merger responses were "because together is better" (21%), "because the common budget will create better opportunities for the territories' development" (19%), "because the government will be able to build new bridges and roads" (15%), and "because there will be a reduction in the number of government workers" (12%)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that answered my question. Thanks! --Hottentot 21:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom accepted

This is the generic message left at several editors' talk pages in relation to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK. Since the fourth ArbCom member has recently voted to accept the case, the case is now considered accepted by the ArbCom as per Arbitration Policy. Please make sure your statement for the ArbCom is on the page if you are willing to write one (OTOH, being named as a party does not require you to make a statement, it just gives you a right to write one) and please make sure your statement is proofread if you wrote it earlier. Please, also, make sure your statement is in the appropriate place of the ArbCom page and not interjecting with others' statements. You are welcome to read up on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy and the associate pages.

--Irpen 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarussian History

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus#Russian_occupation, and tell me do you see this as History of Belarus or more like the history of Poland and the Polish Partitions, lets modify it I have an excellent source on 19th century history in Belarus, it is slightly religiously orientiated but good nevertheless. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 Kuban kazak 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian mergers

Say, have you read anything about what date the merger of Kamchatka and Koryakia will officially take place? I've only read vague assumptions about it being on 1 January 2007, but no definite statement... And while I'm here - have you run into any flags for the three oblasts which still lack flags? I've looked around a bit, but couldn't find any. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you know, the October referendum was successful, with the majority voting for the merger. The lawmakers are currently working on a draft of the constitutional law that will be the basis of new Kamchatka Krai. I have not heard anything new on the actual merger date yet (I think it's still sometime in 2007), but I might have missed the news. The final date will probably depend on how fast the draft is signed into law, among other things.

As for the flags—sorry, I was not actively looking for them. By the way, the ones which are already in Wikipedia—where did they come from? Is {{PD-flag}} still something we can slap on pretty much any flag image? If so, I might be able to locate them, but they may not be of very good quality.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, User:Bart l added most of them from heraldika.ru, according to his summaries (e.g. here), but he said he couldn't find flags of the three oblasts still missing. (Pskov, Kaliningrad and Novgorod, IIRC.) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think I've got the root of the problem: As of 1999 or so, they didn't even have official flags (according to fotw.net), and it's apparently difficult to get information from Russian sources when you're asking them in English... Sadly, I don't speak Russian yet, so I can't try to ask in Russian and see if that gets better results. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 01:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet another note: This or this should be the flag of Novgorod, this, while technically the flag of Kaliningrad City, also seems to be the oblast's flag... though I'm not sure. And this seems to be Pskov's flag. If you can confirm that somehow, it'd be very nice of you to upload them subsequently... I don't want to do it before I've got confirmation from someone. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 01:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get on your nerves, and I assume I would've noticed on my watchlist had you found anything, but I can't help asking. Have you found anything? ;) Either dates or flags? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you are not getting on my nerves. As a matter of fact, I love seeing that yellow bar notifying me of new messages :) Unfortunately, I have not heard/found anything of interest yet. When I do, trust me, you'll be one of the first to know :) Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I love seeing it, too. ;) (Though it's not a yellow bar in my skin, but... whatever... grins) You take care, too! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chukotavia

I marked Chukotavia with Euro-airline-stub because Russia is generally considered to be a European country. However, Anadyr, being east of the Ural, is generally considered to be an Asian city (at least by Wikipedia), hence the Asia-airline-stub. Aecis ^praatpaal 20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that you classified at as Russian as opposed to just Chukotka's. This way it, of course, makes sense, although it's still funny to see it labeled as European.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

When "we stub-sorters" (that sounds a bit arrogant :s) sort by continent, we usually go by the continent of the country. This means that bicontinental countries (like Russia and Turkey) are often double-stubbed, unless there is a very clear guideline (like with {{footyclub-stub}}. When there are enough articles, there will be a {{Russia-airline-stub}}. This would become a daughter of {{euro-airline-stub}} and {{asia-airline-stub}}. The category would contain all Russian airlines, whether in Europe or in Asia, and it would end the ambiguity. Aecis ^praatpaal 21:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I have no problem with it, it's just that it looked weird when I saw your edit. Hopefully you'll gather enough airlines soon enough to get the new cat started. Take care.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Township

I'm glad you asked! I work with WP:DPL. We try to fix links that point to dab pages. By making a link like [[Township (disambiguation)|Township]], it indicates (in the "What links here") that the link purposefully links to the dab page. It is suggested in Wikipedia policy somehwere, I can dig up the reference if you like. I'm happy to anwser any more questions.--Commander Keane 20:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I don't recall this policy, but don't waste your time digging it out for me, if you are really sure. I basically just wanted to make sure this is not a bug in your bot. Take care.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd correct myself, it's not policy (probably why you haven't heard of it), it's a guideline:

If you must link to a disambiguation page (instead of a specific meaning), link to a redirect to the disambiguation page that includes the text "(disambiguation)", e.g. America (disambiguation). This helps in distinguishing accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones'

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation.--Commander Keane 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to clarify this for me. I was not aware of this guideline. Learned something today :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Justified use of self-reference?

Hello,

You deleted the reference to the creation of the 1,000,000th article in Wikipedia in the article about the year 2006, with the comment "avoid self-references". I've read through the related style guideline and I'm still not convinced that this kind of self-reference is to be avoided in Wikipedia, mainly based on the third paragraph of the description:

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia.

I think this event will be a historic event (just think of the press releases and other ways of covering it in the media) which will deserve mentioning in other encyclopedias as well, since Wikipedia has become a unique website of its kind (see also the comparisons). The guideline about avoiding self-reference doesn't require authors to deny the existence or significance of Wikipedia as a recordable phenomenon of the online world.

This piece of information is independent of the carrier (cf. with the suggestion of the guideline), just like the other events mentioned on the 2006 page, so I see no reason for omitting this event from the list.

Adam78 19:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I am still not convinced that this event does not fall under the self-reference category. Actually, there is even more to it than that. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. Item #3 of that policy is especially applicable. The probability of the event is calculated on an unverifiable extrapolation, and, as such, very likely falls under the no original research policy as well. Thus, the entry was deleted due to a combination of its being a self-reference, an unverifiable extrapolation, and an original research. When the event actually happens, however, it will be a whole different story—I see nothing preventing it from being included then.

I am sorry that I neglected to spell out all of these reasons in the edit summary; this was mainly out of my laziness to write an expanded edit summary over what I thought was a trivial edit.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Konstantin Chernenko

It seems to me you are either biased or are not aware that the portrait used in the man's biography is a propaganda image, which also may be copyrighted and does not have a NPOV! It should also be much more favorable to see an actual image of him. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.65.32 (talk • contribs)

I do not see how a two-decade old image of a man long dead can be propagandistic (of a state which is now defunct). The image is also in the public domain, as noted here. I also do not believe that an image can be POV without a context. The context of this image is an encyclopedia article. If you have other concerns regarding the article, please voice them on the article's talk page. Meanwhile I recommend that you leave the pictures alone.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of the Republic of Karelia

Hello. I was wondering where is your information about Administrative divisions of the Republic of Karelia coming from? In the official website of the Republic of Karelia there is no differens between urban settlements, rural settlement council and rural settlements. I was writing same kind of articel in finnish, that the reason to my question. (I'm sorry if my english is not so good.)--Sampsa 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The administrative division information in all those articles I wrote comes directly from OKATO (~"General Russian Classifier of Administrative and Territorial Objects"). This is a federal document, the information for which comes from the local authorities. The document is put together mostly for accounting and government usage and is updated rather frequently. The reason the official website does not mention all the finer distinctions between settlement entities is because it is generally of little or no interest to the general public. All in all, this is Russian bureaucracy at its best, but since I wanted the articles to be as accurate as possible, I included that information.

Also, if you intend to keep these articles in the Finnish Wikipedia, I would recommend that you watchlist them here as well. The changes are frequent enough for the articles to become out-of-date pretty soon. I usually try to keep up by checking OKATO for updates every few weeks and correcting Wikipedia entries accordingly.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have questions.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There was a little bit conflict in fi-wiki about Finnish-version (Karjalan tasavallan hallinnollinen jako). What articles do you mean "watchlisting them"? --Sampsa 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Basically, all articles that start with "Administrative divisions of...". So far I completed them for all of the Russian republics, both federal cities, and Altai Krai. I'll be adding more later, but this is not going to be quick.

The rest of the articles on Russian federal subjects contain an "Administrative divisions" section, but it's basically just a list of districts and sometimes major settlements. They may also be not entirely correct.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions, by the way. I'm always glad to help.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian transliteration

I have corrected mistakes. You're reverting. For example, there can not be Russian village "Поганкино" and "Бурянск". Proper names are Паганкино and Бурьянск. I guess, do you know Russian?--Nixer 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find it funny that you challenge the spelling of the names that I actually made up for illustration purposes. I will replace them with the names of actual places. Still, made up or not, Поганкино is written with an "о", not "а". It's a derivative from the word "поганка" ("a non-edible mushroom"), which is also spelled with an "о" (and the check word is "по́гань"). Needless to say, there are no places in Russia (not at least that I am aware of) with the names "П(о/а)ганкино" and "Буряновск" (or "Бурьяновск", for that matter). And yes, of course I know Russian. I may occasionally make mistakes in English, but not in Russian—it's my native language after all.

Ну раз так, то давай по-русски и пообщаемся.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Давай! Только здесь, а не в обсуждении статей. Английская википедия, всё-таки.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, here is what I did and why:

• removed "Pogankino" (non-existent name of a non-existent place); replaced it with "Vanino" (a port in Khabarovsk Krai);
• removed "Drovyanoye" (same reason); replaced it with "Dalnerechensk" (a town in Primorsky Krai);
• removed soft sign examples for "ё", because this letter is always transliterated as "yo", no matter in which position.

Вот это бред. Поясняю. Поскольку в английском языке есть только два мягких звука - й(y) и ч (ch), англоговорящим очень сложно смягчать согласные. Поэтому в некоторых случаях, когда мягкость согласной может повлиять на смысл, между этой согласной и последующей гласной при транслитерации вставляют y, то есть звук, который в английском всегда мягкий, что автоматически заставляет смягчать и предыдущую согласную. Это лишь приближение. Например: мякоть -> myakot, чтобы не спутать с "макать". Если же перед гласной стоит и так мягкий звук (ч), то смягчать его не надо. Поэтому точной транслитерацией будет Gorbachov, bruschatka и т.д., а не Gorbachyov, bruschyatka.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Мой дорогой Никсер, я же уже два раза объяснил, что к тому, как читается слово, транслитерация имеет очень отдалённое отношение. Транслитерация передаёт то, как слово пишется. Чтение же слова передаёт транскрипция. Вот ещё раз ссылки—transliteration, transcription. Для транскрипции у нас есть IPA. То, что в систему, описываемую статьёй, вкрались элементы произношения, есть a very unfortunate fact, с коим мы сейчас уже боремся путём разделения статьи про транслитерацию вообще и конвенций, используемых Википедией в частности. Конвенции эти, кстати, основаны на наиболее часто используемых элементах в приложении к английскому языку. Поэтому Горбачёв, который Михаил Сергеевич, это Gorbachev, а Горбачёв, который никому неизвестный город, названный в его честь (буде такой появится на карте)—это Gorbachyov. Первый вариант—это общепринятая конвенция (в соответствии с "Use the most common name" policy), а второй—это следование системе транслитерации. Спроси же меня, если что-то непонятно. Никто не предлагает переименовывать статью про Михаила Сергеевича только потому, что буква "ё" на самом деле транслитерируется не так.

Ничего подобного. Во-первых, транслитерация - это передача слов другим алфавитом максимально близко к произношению. Во-вторых, с чего ты взял, что ё должно транслитерироваться всегда именно как yo, а не как o или e? Например, английскую букву i мы транслитерируем иногда как "и" (Дик), иногда как "ай" (Майкл).--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ну ёлы же палы! Ну прочитай же, наконец, transliteration! Вот, выписка: Transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing (sic!) into another. "System of writing, а вовсе не "произношения". Далее, из transcription: transcription is (a system of) writing the sounds of a word (sic!) in one language using the script of another language. Ещё далее: Transcription can be distinguished from transliteration, which creates a mapping from one script to another that is designed to match the original script as directly as possible. Убедил?

С этим никто не спорит. Тем не менее, транслитерация делается не лишь бы как, а чтобы максимально отражать произношение. Не согласен?--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Не согласен. Как я сказал уже как минимум два раза (с цитатами), транслитерация отражает не произношение, а написание. Произношение отражает транскрипция. Статья же про транслитерацию. Ну чего же тут непонятного?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

То есть всё равно, какими буквами передавать буквы другого языка? Зачем тогда разные транслитерации для английского и французкого, если произношение не имеет значения???????--Nixer 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Теперь, с чего я взял, что "ё" всегда "yo"? Во-первых, не всегда, а только в рамках некоторых систем транслитерации. Другие системы используют и "e", и "ë", и "ye", и "yë". А мы используем "yo", потому что такой вариант наиболее распространён, и "e", когда к этому

"Мы" - это кто?--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Большинство редакторов, работающих над статьями, в которых нужна транслитерация.?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

призывает common use. Во-вторых, транслитерация английского на русский—это совсем другая тема (о которой, кстати, в английской википедии нет статьи, и которую ты мог бы написать, если есть знания и желание). Тот же русский на немецкий или французский, например, транслитерируется совсем по-другому, нежели на английский.

Именно, и это потому что там другие правила чтения.--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

И именно поэтому давай о других языках больше не говорить.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

К статье, о которой мы спорим, это не имеет никакого отношения. В третьих, покажи же мне, пожалуйста, какая уважаемая организация для транслитерации русского на английский использует букву "o" для передачи "ё", "a" для "я" и "u" для "ю". Что-то мне сдаётся, что либо такая система используется для транслитерации не на английский, а на какой-то другой язык, либо это вообще плод твоей фантазии. Если сможешь меня разубедить—буду только рад узнать что-то новое.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Отдельной минорной нотой хочу отметить, что слово "брусчатка" пишется через "а", а не "я".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The exceptions are only for names with established English spelling (such as "Gorbachev"). The problem with this definition, which I fully realize and intend to work on, is that this article attempts to both describe a common system of Russian transliteration (mostly BGN/PCGN-based) and to establish Wikipedia transliteration guidelines (hence all the "common use" references). This will eventually be separated into Wikipedia namespace to avoid further confusion;

• replaced "Lapinsk" (another made up example) with "Lipetsk" (a city in Russia; an administrative center of Lipetsk Oblast);
• replaced "Uletaysk" (another one) with "Ukhta" (a town in Russia);
• left "h" (for "х" when commonly accepted)—thanks for catching that, although I am having trouble finding an example too;

Halhin Gol?--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Может быть, но это китайское название, переданное русскими буквами. Я, в принципе, не против его добавить, но желательно бы что-нибудь породнее.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• restored "Ыттык-Кёль"—that's a real place in Sakha (sometimes spelled "Ыттык-Кюёль"). Not Russian, I know, but since there are no Russian words that start with an "ы", a name of a place that originated in a different language (and used in Russian in this form) was the best I could do for this illustration.
• replaced "Kozyuchinsk" (non-existent) with "Sukhoplyuyev" (a Russian surname);

Здесь грамотная транслитерация - Sukhopluev.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Это не "грамотная" транслитерация, это другая транслитерация. Систем транслитерации много, мы не можем их использовать все одновременно, надо на чём-то остановиться. "Suhoplüev" тоже правильно, но в английской википедии не актуально.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• took "iu" off—if you find examples, you are welcome to add it back;

Как правило, при транслитерации СВОИХ имён и фамилий, стараются использовать i вместо y (особенно если они латинского происхождения, т.к. в классической латыни буквы y не было).--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если в каком-либо конкретном случае наверняка известно, что человек предпочитает "i" вместо "y", или же вариант имени/фамилии с "i" более распространён, то он и будет использоваться. В общем же случае (или когда предпочтения отсутствуют или неизвестны) нужно пользоваться одной из систем транслитерации. Одни системы используют "i", другие—"y", распределены они примерно поровну, а остановиться желательно на какой-либо одной. На момент написания статьи про транслитерацию в английской википедии вариант с "y" был более распространён (поскольку при транслитерации русского на английский (подчёркиваю, на английский, другие языки к английской википедии отношения не имеют) он используется чаще), то его и взяли в качестве стандарта. В связи с этим хочу напомнить, что Википедия—это энциклопедия, отображающая положение дел в реальном мире; Википедия не изобретает/продвигает "правильные" стандарты, она описывает то, что уже существует и повсеместно используется.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Существуют разные варианты. Кстати, iu я пометил как вариант в случае если так принято.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если добавишь пример—не имею ничего против. Я просто не хочу перегружать и так уже перегруженную таблицу бесконечными вариантами, к которым нет примеров. Пример этот, однако, должен отражать common use.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• removed soft sign examples for "ю" and "я" (same reason as with "ё");

Я уже сказал, что это не так.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Покажи мне, пожалуйста, описание системы транслитерации русского на английский, где это "не так". Я, в свою очередь, могу привести несколько, в которых это "так". См. выше об описательном характере Википедии.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Тогда и создай колонки для разных систем транслитерации, а не придумывай своего.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Своего никто ничего не придумывал. Колонки создадим—я в курсе, что текущий вариант далеко не оптимален. Интро, кстати, тоже было бы неплохо переписать.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• replaced "Buryansk" with "Krasnoyarsk" (a city in Russia);
• removed "ia"—"Natalia" is too ambiguous (is "ia" for just "я" or for "ья"? Is "Natalia" transliteration for "Наталья" or "Наталия"?) This is another unfortunate mix of Wikipedia policy description and encyclopedic material. Need a better example.

Eupatoria?--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a "common English name", not transliteration per se. But hey, a good one. Add it if you want.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yakutia?--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Also not a bad one.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• restored "-ый/-ий" endings descriptions to their original form. No major transliteration system ever uses "-iy" to transliterate "-ый". It's either "-y", or "-yy", or "-yi". In Wikipedia, "-y" is always used for "-ый". As for "-ий", both "-iy" and "-y" are acceptable and used. Again, this is related to the common use issues, and, as such, will eventually be separated into Wikipedia namespace as well.

Каждый транслитерирует как хочет, а мы должны написать как лучше. Традиция транс литерировать это буквой y пошла из других славянкийх языков (ср. "српски") и не подходит для русского языка.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Опять же, мы должны писать не как лучше, а как принято. Библиотека Конгресса США, например, с этим правилом не имеет никаких проблем.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Они по-русски не говорят. Для них что русский, что польский - всё одно.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Вообще, я подозреваю, что говорят. Кроме того, систему транслитерации они создавали для англоговорящих читателей, а не для русских. Почему же система, созданная американцами для американцев же не подходит для использования в английской википедии, нацеленной на ту же англоговорящую аудиторию?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Вопрос не в том, что подходит, а что - нет. Вопрос в том, что лучше. Чтобы не было ОИ, напиши, что это система конгресса США и не вноси в эту систему никаких правок. Если так сделаешь, я соглашусь. И вообще, это описательная статья или инструкция(рекомендация)? Если описательная, то нужно как можно более точно отразить все имеющиеся альтернативные системы, и ничего не придумывать.--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

И ведь напишу :) Перед этим, однако, я ядовито подмечу, что я (даже на этой странице) уже упоминал, что статья неидельна, потому что она используется и как энциклопедическая, и как рекомендательная для Википедии, а также то, что работа по исправлению сего недоразумения уже началась, хотя и очень недавно (посему и результатов нет—мы всё ещё в стадии документации). Знаешь, очень трудно вести дискуссию с человеком, который невнимательно читает то, что ему пишут в ответ.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Значит, твои исправления годятся, а мои - нет?--Nixer 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Мои были в рамках существующей системы. Твои перемешали всё в кучу без разбора, да ещё и с ошибками. Если бы ты сам сделал колонки, я бы тебе первый спасибо сказал. Не обижайся только раньше времени, работы всем хватит. Вернёшь мой последний вариант обратно, хотя бы частично? Я там далеко не только твои исправления откатил, но и кучу собственных ляпсусов исправил. А уже оттуда будем дальше плясать, желательно без ревёртов туда-сюда. Давай лучше по человечески всё обсудим и не будем бросаться друг друга откатывать. Я тоже погорячился. Приношу свои извинения.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Что сейчас исправлять, если мы абсолютно несогласны? Я проделал огромную работу, а ты считаешь это одной большой ошибкой и "не в рамках системы". Что за "рамки системы"?--Nixer 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Под рамками системы я имел ввиду модифицированный BGN/PCGN, который сейчас статьёй в основном и описывается. Что касается совместной работы—давай начнём с колонок. Я могу начать на днях, но если хочешь сам, я посторонюсь. Deal?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Модифицированный кем? И почему твоя модификацция лучше моей?--Nixer 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, greetings to you too :) Would you mind if we continue this in English? Nightstallion is right, this discussion may be of interest to more than just the two of us.

Anyway, back to your question. "My" (see more on "my" below) modification is better than yours because it represents the conventions currently used in English Wikipedia to transliterate Russian. Yours is part wishful thinking, part personal preferences. If, for example, UN/GOST would had been more spread in Wikipedia, that's what would had been adopted as a standard (and I am sure in that case there'd still be plenty of people like yourself complaining that the system in place is no good, ugly, incorrect, and should be replaced with something else).

Since the system is a representation of existing most common practices, it's not strictly speaking "mine". What I did at the time was to review said practices and compile them into one system. It was later accepted as a Wikipedia policy for transliterating Russian, which is where things are now. I did not invent anything, but merely summarized what I saw.

Now, to wrap it all up—I split the article into the actual article (which stays at Transliteration of Russian into English) and into the policy section (at Wikipedia:Transliteration of Russian into English) this morning. Feel free to improve the article in any way you see fit—I was planning on adding the columns for different translit systems and streamlining the intro when I have time, but if you beat me to it—be my guest. The policy section is currently in effect and, just like any other policy, should not be tampered with. Me and several other editors fully realize that the policy is far from perfect, which is why we are working on general Cyrillics transliteration guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). You are more than welcome to join if you are so inclined, but please do not expect it to be a quick process. We are currently at the documentation stage; there is no voting/proposals/heated debates yet. We'll get there eventually, of course, but so far we are not there (this initiative was started fairly recently, which is why).

Does this address your concerns now?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• replaced "Sin(i)y" with "Podolsk(i)y", as a longer word better illustrates the point of "-y" and "-iy" being interchangeable.
• removed your Trotsky example and replaced it back with Velik(i)y. "Trotsky", by the way, is spelled "Троцкий" in Russian, not "Тротский" (which confirms my guess that you do not know Russian or know it on a basic level at best).

:-)--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Смех смехом, а что же ты правишь статью о транслитерации, и в то же время делаешь ошибки на уровне третьекласника? Я, конечно, беру свои слова обратно, но грамотным человеком тебя посчитать не могу.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ты за собой следи, умник.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если я где ошибся—поправь. Критика приветствуется. Но скажи мне по секрету, чем ты руководствовался, поправляя "Поганкино" на "Паганкино"? Может я не понял чего-то? Не хочу тебя обижать, но выглядит это как элементарнейшая безграмотность.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Бурянск" тоже выглядит как безграмотность.--Nixer 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Я это слово придумал, я его и пишу, как хочу :) Если серьёзно, то выбор был плохим—я поленился подобрать нормальный пример, а потом забыл заменить. Хотя "Чебурянск", например, звучит вполне грамотно.:)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Velik(i)y" is a part of the name of the city of Velik(i)y Novgorod and is a common Russian word.

Hope this is a good enough explanation for you. Let me know if you have questions of any sort.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You two do realize that I now wish that I already knew Russian, and was not only hoping to learn it some time over the next five years, so I could join the discussion? ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

O course you can join, if you can get into the deal. You can ask me any questions in my talk page.--Nixer 23:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Judging from the condition of the article, which was pretty much neglected for the past year and a half, I figured no one is interested. I will comment in English from now on. Basically, we are discussing our little revert war on Transliteration of Russian into English. If you take a look at its recent history, it should give you a good enough idea about the nature of our disagreement.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, I was just wondering. Mh, maybe I should shelve my plans to learn Swedish and instead start learning Russian now instead of later... ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Примеры

Привожу количество ссылок из Гугля

1. Rurik 238 000, Ryurik 780, Riurik 607
2. viuga 1050, vyuga 701
3. Gulchatay 4 110, Gyulchatay 223, Giulchatay 17
4. Ludmila 2 320 000, Lyudmila 432 000, Liudmila 214 000
5. Gorbachev 2 250 000, Gorbachov 247 000, Gorbachyov 1 120
6. Vasilievich 126 000, Vasilyevich 86 200.

These are very good examples why having one transliteration system in place is way better than having none. You do realize, of course, that a good number of examples favoring a different transliteration system can be found just as easily? What I am aiming for is consistency in Wikipedia articles. What is your goal?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why then it should be the least used rules? Why Ryurik instaed of Rurik, Lyudmila instaed of Ludmila and so on?--Nixer 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Практически для всех фамилий Булычёв, Лигачёв и т.д. вариант -ov опережает вариант -yov. Фамилиям Сёмин, Пчёлкин твоя система тоже не соответствует. --Nixer 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't get what your problem is. I already mentioned the common use policy which would favor "ov" over "yov" in these cases; what else do you want to prove?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You said if it was a city "Горбачёв" we should transliterate it as Gorbachyov. So you're getting your words back?--Nixer 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not taking my words back. After all my explanations, you still seem to confuse common use and transliteration. We do have articles on Rurik and Mikhail Gorbachev (note the spelling), because this is how they are commonly known in English. This is not an area where transliteration is applied.

Now, take Soviet Union. The note says that Soviet Union is called "Советский Союз" in Russian, and gives "Sovetsky Soyuz" as transliteration. Now, it can also be transliterated as "Sovetskiy Soyuz", "Sovetskij Sojuz", "Sovetskii Soiuz", and possible in a dozen of other ways, some more common than other, and some more common than the version used in the article. We do not, however, add all these variants to the intro line, because it will overwhelm it and provide little added value. The very purpose of transliteration in this case is to give a reader an idea of what all those funny Cyrillic letters he just saw mean.

Soviet Union is a well-known concept, however, with a great number of google references. Let's take a hypothetical village "Чёртиково", which would have hardly any google hits. Obviously, google here is irrelevant because the hits sample size is too small, and there is no common use established in English, because it's generally of no interest to English-speaking audience. This is where transliteration kicks in. What having only one system does here is establishing a frame of consistency, which gives readers predictability needed to find the article on this village. For the sake of that same consistency, a little town of "Gorbachyov" would be spelled with a "yo", as long as this is what the policy prescribes. If the town grows in size and/or becomes a place of a terrorist act, thus making it known to English-speaking readers, then the article will be titled under whatever name is more commonly used. It could be "Gorbachev", "Gorbatchov", "Gorbachiov"—until it happens, there is no way to find out ahead of time. Common use will take over from there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthemore, if you have issues with the whole concept of common use vs. transliteration as I explained above, now would be a great time to voice them at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). You'll get a chance to hear someone else's opinion and feedback there. The more points of view are voiced there, the better for that initiative and, ultimately, for Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on THESE rules? Number of people that transliterate their own name with -chov is much more then those who transliterates as -chyov. Pick any surname - not Gorbachov, but Borshchov for example.--Nixer 21:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to continue this discussion until you start paying attention to what I write to you in response. If you intend to ignore my responses, why bother with this discussion at all? Please refer back to my responses about 1. common use; 2. right to choose spelling of one's own name; and 3. current transliteration policy being a representation of existing practices. All I insist on is that current policies are followed—they did not appear out of thin air, you know. If you do not like a particular policy, feel free to voice your concern in an appropriate place (hint: it's not my talk page). Which reminds me of 4. invitations to participate in policy revision discussions.

Should you have any questions I have not previously addressed, please feel free to ask me then.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO having a consistent naming helps to avoid double triple or quadruple creation of articles. And avoids red links were articles already exist. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Need help of a russian mafia member

• I wanted to revert the vandal latest vandalism but Deldot did it at the same time. strange: I think I submitted it and I did not get any error notice. And it shows nothing in the history. The last vandal vandalized two times, but you only counted up one step.
• I need help: Can admins change edit summaries? I definetly saw I was accused of using a straw man, but cannot find this statement anymore. It was made near Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities)
  • (cur) (last) 14:56, 14 December 2005 Tobias Conradi (rv to 24.172.77.138)
  • (cur) (last) 22:30, 13 December 2005 William Allen Simpson (Proposal UP text, Determine prevalent usage)
  • (cur) (last) 22:06, 13 December 2005 24.172.77.138 (fmt (golbez editing from another pc))
• The straw man accusation was made by William (I think it was him) refering

(cur) (last) 22:06, 13 December 2005 24.172.77.138 (fmt (golbez editing from another pc)) and claiming this edit of 24.172.77.138 was a straw man used by me.

• User:WilliamAllenSimpson was changed to User:William Allen Simpson recently. He started editing 15 Nov.
• Today I started editing at 14:53 [9]

around this time I must have seen the straw man accusation.

• User:Golbez who is involved in the conflict, at 17:22, 14 December 2005 claimed to be the owner of IP User:24.172.77.138 [10]
• Now I cannot find the accusation. Any idea? Maybe it was just made at another place? But I checked Williams edits who thinks I am (en-1 unlikely en-2). He is very Bad faith against me and proposes "The easiest solution would be for this disruptor to be banned for life, as apparently s/he has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere" - the disruptor in his phrase being me.
• can you as russian mafia member help me to find the straw man accusation?

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tobias! Haven't run into you for a while now. Regarding your concerns:

• Your revert of vandalism not showing up in the history—that means that Deldot was the first to do it. Your revert request was probably received by the server immediately after his took effect. Since your version was exactly the same as Deldot's (you did revert the same instance of vandalism, after all), it was not saved. I believe it is one of the new features of Wikipedia—you cannot save another version of the article if its identical to the most recent revision.
• Edit summaries—admins cannot edit those. Developers can, I think, but I can't imagine a compelling enough reason for them to do it. Developers can also clean histories, but as far as I remember that's only done per Jimbo's request, which is to say does not happen every day :)
• Straw man accusations—that would require me to sift through the contribution histories of the people you've been involved with for the past few days, which I'd rather not do. I can assure you, however, that if such an accusation took place—it can be found. Like I said above, admins cannot correct edit summaries or clean up histories. Hope this helps.

Take care.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I shut down the PC and went to bed, yes and there I had the idea. I run to the PC to check it and to prevent that you have to read to much which maybe is not all worth any more. Well, russian mafia is fast. (BTW in the bed I thought calling KGB would be better) The answer is at [11] and yes I was accused of be an straw man of myself. I think this is somehow true. (I was the one who made proposal D) He wrote

(A Straw man by Tobias Conradi) There is no serious support for this proposal.

Ok, thanks for your assurance that admins can't do that. Next time I will not think about this probabilty so much. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Newbie on St. Petersburg

Understood. Hopefully he'll take the hint. Roy Al Blue 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:LocationKarelia.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LocationKarelia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:LocationKomiRepublic.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LocationKomiRepublic.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Administrative divisions of Russia in 1708-1710

Hi, I saw this page created by you and I was thinking if you could help me a bit. You see I am working on Subdivisions of Lithuania and there is this section about subdivisions in the Russian Empire (1795-1919). I wonder if you could give me the dynamics of how the guberniyas merged and splited at that time in the Baltic area. Any info would be really helphul. Renata3 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Renata! I can tell you for sure that I do have that information. Problem is, it's very scattered and unorganized (which is, along with the lack of time, is the reason why I stopped working on the project for a while). The other thing is that most of it is in Russian. If you have no problem with Russian (which is probably not the case, because it's not in your Babel box), I'll be more than glad to ship you everything I have so far. If Russian is an obstacle, I can translate the bulk of the information so you'll have a good starting point, but that may take a while (and a long while at that). Please let me know what you prefer.

And, hey, great job on Subdivisions of Lithuania! A very interesting and a high-quality article so far.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but the job is not mine :) It's User:DeirYassin's. I am trying to clean it up a bit and add more details (I have been working on it for the last couple of hours). Yep, I don't speak Russian, but I have tons of friends who do :) So if you could send me the info you have, I'd be really grateful. If it's in digital format, my email is my username at gmail. Renata3 02:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I got the email and the attachment. Thank you! I will analyze them a bit later and will keep posted about any progress. Renata3 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox, {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}}

Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, but I'd rather not overload my user page with user boxes. Come to think about it, I probably have too many already :) I'll do add the cat, though. Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Outsiders' opinions wanted

Hi, I just though I might ask you. Currently there is a debate whether to move Partitions of Poland to Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first one is shorter and looks like it is more commonly used. The second one is politically & historically correct. Could you voice your opinion on the talk page? Because now it's all Lithuanians and Polish who fight each other :) We need someone "unbiased." I would very much appreciate it. Renata3 12:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the discussion for some reason reminds me of that at Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv and Talk:Mikhail of Chernihiv. It is a mix of nationalism, Wikipedia policy issues, common English use issues, the terms used by other encyclopedias and literature on the subject. All in all, I believe it boils down to the general naming policy of Wikipedia, except in this case we are not talking of the name of a place, but of how the series of events should be named. I'd recommend to bring this to a higher level by initiating something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names; only, of course, it would be regarding the names of historic events.

I also choose not to participate in the discussion—partially because I am not so sure myself which name is better, partially because I am going to be eaten by both Polish and Lithuanian editors :), and partially because it looks like a time committment I cannot afford at this time. I am sure, though, that you will be able to find other Russian editors who would be delighted to participate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I totally hear you (eating time and each other are my reasons why I stayed away from such discussions for a very long time), I just though I might try my luck and ask you. We'll work out something. But also, check your user page for a xmas gift ;) Renata3 16:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Then consider it a loan till the project is complete :D Renata3 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you forgot to add "no pressure" :))—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied to your email

...but the adress seems not to be valid. Maybe fix the address and write me a second mail, simply saying "Merry Christmas". :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what happened, but I've just sent another one your way. Hopefully it's gonna be more accurate than my first. Sorry about that!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Subway stations

I moved them all back, except Belyayevo/Okhotny Ryad which I could not. Please see my responce at the notice board and at Nixer's talk. --Irpen 21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian Federal Subjects Question

Thanks for the welcome :D. Is there a status list for the WikiProject? --Charm Quark^?? 15:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the status list is available here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

Hi, David. I noticed that you blocked this user for 3RR violation. Would you please list the reverts you counted against him on his talk page? Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see more than three. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I listed the four reversions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Per your request, I've duplicated that list on Ghirlandajo's talk page and below:

1, 2, 3, 4. —David Levy 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I was hoping you counted them wrong, but it's obvious that it was me who made a counting error. It's a pity to lose Ghirla for 24 hours—he is otherwise a really fine contributor who makes tons of high-quality edits around holidays. I can only hope he'll be more careful in future.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

geodis

I would never edit a page with the only edit being to change geodis to disambig, but geodis is not needed and isn't a useful template, in my opinion. It doesn't appear in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) at all. Ultimately, I'm going to ask for it to be deleted. Tedernst | talk 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind to ask for it to be deleted first and delete all references to it then? It may very well be eventually deleted, but, IMO, it's just impolite to automatically assume it will be. I, for one, can see how this template can be useful. If most other editors are going to disagree with me, then so be it—I'll comply—but let's at least discuss it first!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tedernst | talk 21:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you don't think that I don't want to see you continue fixing the piping and overall dab style of those articles.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

С Новым Годом!

. --Irpen